Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the bait-troll dept

Trolls, as we all know, have a tendency to derail the conversation. But once in a while, the result is that they send it hurtling down a path of insight and hilarity—and that's what happened this week. Three out of four top-voted comments came in response to one of our more tenacious bridge-dwellers, on our post about the content industry continuing to punish paying customers with their misguided attempts to fight piracy. Forever the moralist, said troll dismissed economics and pragmatism in favor of beating the piracy-is-wrong! drum, and amidst many great responses, JEDIDAH won Most Insightful for reiterating our view that wrong or not, it really doesn't matter:

If you're really worried about the money, a pirate and a lost customer "doing without" look exactly the same.

If the bobble heads at the Patent Office continue on the path they are currently following then we can certainly expect a rush of patents on all kinds of human activity with the caveat of it being done "with a robot" -- e.g., dig a hole with a robot, change a tire with a robot, build a swing set with a robot -- just as "with a computer" seems to justify patents being issued on things such as getting feedback from a buyer or scrolling through a document.

For the second Insightful Editor's Choice, we'll circle back to our top winner. JEDIDAH's comment about pirates and non-customers being no different from each other was fantastic, but Richard realized you could take it one step further and replied:

Actually this is wrong - because a pirate may give you some extra publicity and that may attract others who will pay. The "doing without" customer doesn't do this.

And that takes us nicely into the funny side of things, where both of the community's favorite comments were also in response to the regular troll who mostly took over that thread. First up, there's an anonymous comment yet again underlining the fact that focusing on morals is missing the point:

Nothing you've said has any bearing at all on this article. You're like the guy at the rave who's had one hit of acid too many and spends the rest of the weekend talking to a floorboard with a few knots in close proximity that sort of resemble a face.

Of course, at this point, I suspect we'd have better luck getting the floorboard to understand these concepts.

Up next is a reply to a reply, where still another commenter had pointed that our troll missed the point of the article entirely, and ComputerAddict suggested a possible diagnosis for this critical and repeated brain failure:

Give him a break, it's just his ContentID system failing.

It saw an article by Mike that contained the word "Pirate" and it automatically started spewing the canned "Pirate Mike" response. Its not like there is a human behind these content identification systems that are actually reading for context.

Perhaps we need a YouTube-esque warning message. "This post has been trolled because it contains content from: Reality."

For Editor's Choice on the funny side, we'll dig into the surplus of stories about porn and sex that seemed to dominate (no, not like that) Techdirt this week. First up is Tunnen on our post about some laywers "patenting sex" (not really). He snagged enough votes (plus the First Word slot) to achieve the impressive feat of out-sex-joking Dark Helmet:

I'd tell you where you could stick that patent.... though that act may also violate it. =P

And last but definitely not least (in fact, my favorite, because I love a joke crafted from the mundane by the addition of a single piece of punctuation) we've got an anonymous comment on our post about the GOP's war on porn that tweaks (no, not like that) a common campaign topic:

Forever the moralist, said troll dismissed economics and pragmatism in favor of beating the piracy-is-wrong! drum, and amidst many great responses, JEDIDAH won Most Insightful for reiterating our view that wrong or not, it really doesn't matter... underlining the fact that focusing on morals is missing the point...

But it does matter that it's wrong. If it weren't wrong, it wouldn't matter that it happens. But because it is wrong, it matters that it happens. You and Mike and the rest of the gang might not think that it matters that it's wrong, but in the real world when someone is doing something wrong, it actually matters.

The fact that you don't/won't acknowledge that much speaks volumes, and it's a big part of what makes Techdirt a pirate-apologist blog. The Techdirt m.o. is to just gloss over the fact that piracy is wrong and to pretend like it doesn't even matter that people's rights are being willfully violated.

Can I willfully violate your rights? Would you think it didn't matter then? If not, why not? I know you don't have a good answer.

And honestly, referring to a dissenter as a "troll" is just sad. You're trying to demonize and dehumanize a person who has a different point of view. Shame on you. And shame on creating an atmosphere that isn't conducive to differing points of view.

Re:

Personally I believe that, while violating the rights of creators is wrong in a very real sense, it is at least equally wrong (in a broader and, in the long run, more significant sense) to hold back the proliferation of culture and interfere with the (in my opinion) absolutely incredible potential of technology that can make all human knowledge and culture available to everyone, everywhere, all the time.

But, since I also think that since greater economic opportunity exists in embracing infinite distribution in the long run too, I think the moral discussion (which is highly personal and subjective anyway) can and should be made secondary, at least in certain forums -- and that's the truly important part. Different forums for different ideas. Techdirt occasionally takes on the moral side of things directly with certain posts, but for the most part our focus is on the economic and practical side of things. The only way to make any progress in discussions and debates about a complex topic is if you are capable of sectioning off parts of it or views of it to look at individually, as well as considering the whole.

And that's why I label this dissenter a troll. He's not capable of participating in a structured discussion or even addressing a topic as it was presented -- he just goes back to "but it's wrong!" and beats that drum. That's unbearably counterproductive and he knows it. It's the same mentality that has held so many businesses back -- "we refuse to budge until piracy is solved"

Well, our goal is not to solve or stop piracy -- our goal is to find sustainable, growable business models that realistically work in the digital world without relying on heavyhanded enforcement or ever-expanding laws. Reduced piracy is likely to be a side-effect of that, but even if it wasn't, we wouldn't care as long as creators are succeeding. If someone is only here in the comments to insist that we shouldn't be allowed to have that discussion because "piracy is wrong", then they need to go find a different forum to participate in -- a forum where people's goal is to stop piracy. By hanging around here, attempting to turn every discussion into a moral debate about piracy that prevents people from examining any other aspect, then they are a troll.

Re: Re:

So as long as I can rationalize that in the "broader and, in the long run, more significant sense" that your rights don't matter, that means I get to violate your rights? And if I decide that violating your rights causes more good than harm, does that justify my decision to do so?

You're trying to downplay the fact that people are having their rights violated, and you've decided that since you think the victims would be better off not worrying about their rights then it's not a big deal that people violate them. In other words, you've made yourself the arbiter of what's important and what's not. You put yourself and your views ahead of the law and other people's rights. I'm sorry that you disagree with the law, but that doesn't excuse anyone's decision to violate it.

As far as calling that poster a "troll," I think it's ridiculous and childish. So what if his view is that it's wrong and that it's important to discuss that aspect? If you disagree with him, state your case. But calling him names and making fun of him isn't productive. Labeling anyone who reminds you of an uncomfortable truth a "troll" says more about you than it does about them.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So if someone pirates in Brazil, will someone in America lose $1?"

Jay, it's never quite as direct as that, but let's consider:

You make a TV show in the US. It's popular, and you decide to license it to different countries for a fee. Local TV stations pay you a fee based on their ability to attract viewers, and thus to attract advertisers.

Now, if your TV has been widely pirated in Brazil, such that everyone has already seen it, do you really think that a TV channel would pay the same amount of money that they would pay for something that is new, that people have not seen already?

If everyone already has it, everyone has already seen it, and everyone has a copy they can watch again and again with no commercials, no interruptions... why would they watch it on TV?

At that point, your ability to license your TV show into Brazil, example, is near zero. No, you cannot equate one pirated version to a $1 loss, it's never that simple. It's what the pirate apologists try hard to stress. If a rights owner cannot draw a simple straight 1 to 1 connection, then there must be no loss.

Just because it's not easy to document the DIRECT loss doesn't mean there isn't loss.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Poverty does not justify crime, yet poverty breeds crime. Whether or not windowing justifies piracy isn't the issue. It will create it regardless. And just like the poverty example, heavier enforcement won't stop it either. The answer would be to find a more sustainable business model that will still pay the content creators for their creativity, and at the same time, won't punish the end users for living in a certain country, region, or whatnot.

Of course, why create a new business model when the old one works so well? The answer is simple. The old business model doesn't work anymore. Technology has changed, and businesses need to change as well, otherwise they will be left behind.

Piracy is not right, but the gatekeepers, and some content creators are forcing people to it by refusing to adapt to the current market. Piracy is a symptom of companies that refuse to innovate, and refuse to bring the customer the product they want. The consumers will go to the content they want, and if the creators won't give it to them legally, they'll get it another way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, windows is a false economy. It worked when there was no alternative. The market drives the price down, regardless of valuation. With the advent of modern communications, economics allows for the "infinite" supply of the goods, whether the creator wishes it or not, whether it';s.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The market is driving them out of business completely. How will it feel when the window is gone because the content isn't there?

I live in a place that is about 6 - 8 months behind the US on some things, completely up to date on others. But it's a small market here for english stuff, and I understand that there isn't the ad dollars to support getting it sooner. Basically, it had to have run twice in the US (original and repeat) before we see it here. Guess what? I don't die because I have to wait a little bit.

The supply isn't infinite. There are a limited number of shows you want to watch. Distribution may be easier, but the economics don't change just because you found a way to steal (and I mean steal here, because the product isn't available in your market at all. You aren't just copying over the air TV, you are actually taking something that isn't available in your area at all).

The impatience reminds me of my 3 year old son. He gets in quite the little hissy fit if he can't have something now. Thankfully, he is learning a little patience, and will certainly grow out of the "want it all now" phase. It's something most of them grow out of.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"you are actually taking something that isn't available in your area at all"

Impossible: If it isn't available, it can't be taken...

Reminds me of the old joke about the philosophy professor on Oxford station.

He sees a that a fast train to London has just stopped at a signal at the end of the platform. He opens the door. A railway offical shouts out to him "Excuse me sir - that train doesn't stop here!" calmly he gets on and shuts the door - as he does this he replies "and I'm not getting on it!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can't steal what isn't there. IT's physically impossible to steal imaginary property. Plus, there are about three shows I want to watch. Period. Everything else is just additional timesinks.

I would much rather companies made the thing available worldwide without any DRM at a price point that I value the content at than go hunt on, say, TPB. But if it's not available for a year, that's a year that my points of discussion aren't relevant.

Re: Re: Re:

And when these so called "rights are violated, it can actually result in a net gain for everyone, including the creator of the work?
No, you are a fool. You would sacrifice any good that comes out of infringement because you're too scared of losing that government granted monopoly. However, the joke's on you, you've already lost it. The government granted monopoly is unenforceable. Everyone can copy and there's no way for the government to stop everyone from copying.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

average_joe seems to be arguing for a variation on the Lawful Stupid trope. It's more important to be a victim screaming about having your rights violated and futilely lashing out with attempts at enforcing your rights while ruining any goodwill that the general public has left for you than it is to make sure you're capable of making money in the current market conditions by adapting as necessary to reality. "It's the law!" seems to trump "ooh! I made money from my creative work despite and/or because of piracy and my clever business model!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Okay, so you have not problem if I come over and take your car. After all, it's just a changing market condition, where people no longer pay for cars, they just take the ones they like. I like your car. I am taking it.

So now start a site called "CarDirt" and teach people how to profit from the lack of having a car.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you want to come over to my house and create an exact copy of my car while leaving me the original, you are more than welcome to do so. Why you would waste such miraculous replicating technology on copying an older car like mine rather than solving world hunger doesn't make sense to me, but you apparently know more about market conditions than I do.

Re: Re: Re:

See, you're not a troll because you actually try to have a civilized conversation about it. We call that poster a "troll" because he is not willing to try to make his argument without endless personal attacks. If someone states their case, all he will do is insult them and insist that he is right. If he were actually interested in a discussion, we'd be more than happy to deal with him and not call him a troll, but he's just insistent on being the loudest voice in the room.

Re: Re: Re:

Whether or not you agree that the moral question is more important than the economic one, the question is the same: can you set aside the moral aspect and have a discussion about the very real economic questions, which are worthy of attention whether you believe them to be primary or secondary?

You're trying to downplay the fact that people are having their rights violated, and you've decided that since you think the victims would be better off not worrying about their rights then it's not a big deal that people violate them. In other words, you've made yourself the arbiter of what's important and what's not.

No, I've not "made myself the arbiter" of anything — i've expressed my opinion about what I think is more important. And there are lots of others who agree. And sometimes we'd like to have discussions that start from that mutual agreement and move forwards into the details, rather than constantly grappling with people who have a fundamentally different set of priorities and values on this whole subject.

If you're not interested in those discussions, or not mature enough to participate in them, then this is not the forum for you. People here don't want to have the same moral debate over and over again - they want to discuss other things. If someone insists on repeatedly attempting to start that debate, and cries foul when the community makes it clear to them that they aren't interested whether by reporting or replying, and keeps at it and at it for years, I feel perfectly justified in calling them a troll. I can't see any other possible motivation for their behaviour beyond a desire to fight.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To put it another way, if I host a book club, I'm not going to invite the guy who thinks reading is a waste of time. We don't want to spend all night arguing broad principles with him - we want to talk about the book.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"To put it another way, if I host a book club, I'm not going to invite the guy who thinks reading is a waste of time. We don't want to spend all night arguing broad principles with him - we want to talk about the book."

Sadly, you only want to talk about what is on the bottom of page13. You have convinced yourself that it's the only part of the book that matters. When someone wants you to read the whole book, you insult them and tell them they are stupid for not paying attention to the bottom of page13.

You are attempting to have a discussion without looking at the whole picture. Don't get snotty when someone points that out to you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

However you want to frame the analogy is fine. The fact is, we know what we want to discuss, and you know what we want to discuss, but you insist on attempting to derail the discussion with what YOU want to discuss every single time, even when it's not on topic at all. Very childish, and very trollish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So trying to get you to see past the end of your nose is trollish and childish? Well excuse me for trying to bring reality to the conversation. The fact remains that Mike's view of copyright is extremely narrow and well, extreme. The fact that he refuses to ever discuss his personal beliefs directly is disconcerting. And labeling me pejoratively because I want to discuss the difficult stuff is sad. It seems that all you and Mike know how to do is ridicule those who don't take your extremist views.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Bringing in new concepts and alternative views is fine -- if you do it maturely.

Trying to turn EVERY CONVERSATION into the same one is not. It's childish, and trollish. No matter what we want to discuss - no matter which aspect, which view, which detail, which topic -- you and other trolls say the *exact same thing* -- "but but piracy is wrong, so we refuse to have this conversation"

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If Techdirt only wrote articles about helping people make money in the digital age, I might think you had a point. But that's not all that Techdirt does. There's plenty of articles where the position is taken that the blame for piracy lies with the victims and not with the pirates. That's nonsense, not helping people out. That's pirate apologism.

Same thing with all the articles that defend the pirates. Every effort to take any action against a pirate is put under the microscope and dissected at the subatomic level. But then everything a pirate does is glorified and defended--facts and law be damned. That's not simply helping people out. That's pirate apologism.

And then there's articles like this one, where you reiterate the mantra that "wrong or not, it really doesn't matter" and "focusing on morals is missing the point." That's not simply discussing how people can be better off. That's pirate apologism.

I don't care if you want to help people out. That's admirable. But it's all the pirate apologism that really bothers me--and the fact that it's denied even though it's patently obvious. Give me a break. Techdirt is all about apologizing for and defending the pirates. And it's about blaming the pirates' victims for the pirates' conscious decision to violate their rights. That's the part that bothers me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

There's plenty of articles where the position is taken that the blame for piracy lies with the victims and not with the pirates. That's nonsense, not helping people out. That's pirate apologism.

Again, you're imposing a moral conversation where it doesn't belong. A lack of good legal offerings IS a prime motivator for piracy — that's a fact. Increased legal offerings are a proven way of reducing piracy — that's also a fact. So our advice is to worry less about just "feeling wronged" because of piracy, and more about offering a better product. Again -- not a moral decision, a pragmatic one. But you want to make this about "blaming the victim" and how that's morally wrong, when we believe that you are only a "victim" if you see yourself as such instead of embracing the many opportunities that come with the same technology that enables piracy. To me, you're the one turning people into victims by telling them that's what they are, and telling them they have no command over their own fate until some greater power steps in to protect them by clamping down on piracy, and that until then they should just beg, cry foul and play on people's sympathy.

Same thing with all the articles that defend the pirates. Every effort to take any action against a pirate is put under the microscope and dissected at the subatomic level. But then everything a pirate does is glorified and defended--facts and law be damned.

You'll find our interpretation of the law is generally consistent, and both sides of that coin you describe stem from the same thing: the knowledge that things labelled "piracy" more often than not turn out to be important disruptive innovations that change everything for the better.

And then there's articles like this one, where you reiterate the mantra that "wrong or not, it really doesn't matter" and "focusing on morals is missing the point." That's not simply discussing how people can be better off. That's pirate apologism.

Why is it apologism? Firstly, as I described above, I feel the moral question is bigger and more complex than your view of "it's the law, it's their rights, you're wrong, shut up", but hey that's me. But that's not even the point, because the statement "wrong or not, it really doesn't matter" is not apologism — it's setting aside the moral question to have a more pragmatic discussion. If you don't want to do that, fine - but don't expect everyone to constantly entertain you just because you want to have an entirely different conversation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The ONLY person who is to blame for that person's conscious decision to pirate is that person. No one else. Don't like their legal offerings, then don't do business with them. Don't like the way a rightholder chooses not to embrace an opportunity, then don't do business with them. But nothing ever justifies violating their rights. Nothing.

No other blogs day in and day out pumps out as much pirate apologism as Techdirt. Article after article about how piracy is not a big deal, defending any pirate who gets caught, cutting down any rightholder who dares to complain about their rights being violated, blaming the victims, etc. It's a fact that Techdirt is a pirate apologist blog.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What would that matter? If something is not available, then you don't get to have it. It's an incredible sense of entitlement, and Techdirt is there day after day to tell the pirates that it's not their fault and it's all OK.

Funny how admitted pirates like yourself feel right at home on Techdirt, yet Mike can't even admit that he's a pirate apologist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you're not willing to make offerings available to a certain demographic that clearly wants it, then you're not loosing a damn thing by them having it for free. But that's the problem isn't it? You can't stand the idea that someone might get your creative works for free even if it would have no impact on you whatsoever. If you're unwilling to serve them with a legal offering and they want it regardless, there's nothing wrong with them having it. These aren't physical goods we're talking about here. No matter how many copies are out there, there can always be more.

That's the problem with you and your ilk. You still have this ass-backwards connotation between physical goods and intangible goods. They aren't the same and you can't apply moral imperatives to intangible goods like you can to physical goods. The unauthorized taking of physical goods results in a loss to the owner. However, the taking of non-physical goods does not represent a loss to the owner.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I wonder if it's a flaw in territory related insincts. We're so used to dealing with the physical that when intellectal works you get people who slopply try to apply physical morality onto digital goods.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The main thrust is that "Piracy happens, there's ways to avoid it and maybe even profit off of it."

And I wouldn't call it "blaming the victim," but more like, "if the victim altered their behavior they would be less likely to be a victim." If someone leaves their car running, in a bad neighborhood, at 3am, with the door open, you wouldn't BLAME them for having their car stolen, but you would probably say something like "Duh!" and call them an idiot. Of course the thief is wrong. Of course the loss of the car is lamentable. No, nothing the victim did warrants the loss of his property. BUT, we happen to live in a world where cars get stolen. That's why cars have ignition keys and locking doors and Lojack and VINs. Because shit happens. If you don't take the minimum steps to realize that you are not currently living in an Utopia and that bad people will do bad things if given half a chance, bad shit will probably happen. Saying that isn't defending the doers of the bad shit, its recognizing the world as the fucked up place it is.

So, yes. It is terrible that someone can spend hours/days/months/years working on a book/movie/song/play/etc. and in the end have no say in how people come by it. It's a travesty that someone can make something loved by many many people and in the end lose money on it, which may or may not lead them to stop making things people love. But the Techdirt Gang are trying to help in their own way. We could talk all day about how horrible piracy is. Talking about how bad it is doesn't stop it though. But talking about how to make (more?) money despite it may. Giving a 3 hour lecture on how bad stealing cars is doesn't stop car theft. But a 3 hour lecture on locking your doors may.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"And I wouldn't call it "blaming the victim," but more like, "if the victim altered their behavior they would be less likely to be a victim." "

It's the same sort of disgusting logic that says a girl shouldn't wear certain clothes because it might cause a man to rape her. In some muslim countries, women are covered with a bedsheet to avoid temptation, as Allah was tempted as all men would be by the flesh. Do you think that is right?

It is always blaming the victim.

"But the Techdirt Gang are trying to help in their own way."

Yes, by cheering on the piracy sites, cheering on their rights to "free speech" no matter how much it causes piracy, and then they offer to "help" the victims. I don't think too many victims want help from those who enable and encourage the crime.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do I think it's right that a woman could be beaten raped and killed by misguided adherents to a particular religion for dressing in a certain way? No. That's horrible. But at the same time, if you are a woman living in a country where a woman could be beaten raped and killed by misguided adherents to a particular religion for dressing in a certain way, maybe you should exercise caution when you dress that way? The world SUCKS. We should try to make it better. But don't do things that are going to put your ass in danger either.

Also, I see a lot a lot of technical legal breakdowns of sites that allegedly aid piracy. I see a lot of cheering for artists who find new and awesome ways to monetize their content despite that fact that there are dirty thieving pirate sites all over too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Furthermore, it's a question of practicality. "Your car is likely to get stolen if you leave it here." You have every right to leave your car there without someone absconding with it. If someone does, they are a terrible person indeed. If I'm trying to tell you to lock your doors, I'm not cheering on a car thief, or saying the thief is right for taking your car, or blaming you for having your car stolen, I'm trying to help you out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, what you are saying is that you don't support car theft, but you are willing to support their rights to carry a slim jim, to carry other tools to break into the cars, and when caught driving the car, you don't think they should be charged or treated as a criminal because they were just showing how the car could be stolen and why you should lock it better.

Then further, you berate the car owner for using a new fangled "DRM" style lock on the car because the determined thieves can still steal it, and it might sometimes actually lock you out.

What you are really saying is don't lock your car, don't bitch about car thieves, and perhaps you can mitigate the problem by leaving the gas tank almost empty and hoping the next thief fills it up for you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You don't need a slim jim to break into an unlocked car. I do support someone's rights to carry "other tools to break into the cars" since you could use a hammer and screw driver for such. You can make your own slim jim out of a coat hanger with a little determination. Should we outlaw those as well?

Then, if a car manufacturer added a new "DRM" style lock which 1) did nothing to keep thieves from getting cars once one person figures it out, and 2) made use of the car more complicated for legitimate uses, i would berate the hell out of them, because it's stupid.

And I don't know why you can't get it through your thick skull that encouraging basic preventative measures against a thing is not the same as being a secret supporter of said thing.
"OMG, did you say people in New Orleans should put hurricane clips on their houses to keep their roofs from blowing off? I guess you're supporting hurricanes."

"OMG are you saying that there's a fire in my living room and I should leave MY house for fear of getting burend? I guess you're saying that fire isn't evil."

"What? There's a biker gang outside of my house that is kicking the asses of anyone who walks by wearing tacky argyle sweaters so i shouldn't wear my tacky argyle sweater outside? I guess you're trying to help the biker gang!"

What I'm saying is piracy happens. It's not going to unhappen. It's shit. Find a business model that allows you to cope with it or else you're going out of business. Sorry.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Amusing but you miss the point. There is an arsonist on the loose, he's in my living room, and he is setting a fire... and you are saying I should just leave, it's safer."

Well, yeah. Call 911 I bet they'd tell you the same thing. something like "Get away and wait for the police to arrive."

"You also support selling matches and gas to the guy, and you willingly drove him to my house and helped him get in."

I do support selling him matches and gas, especially since to avoid unwittingly selling gas and matches to an arsonist you would have to stop selling them to ANYONE. Gas and matches are common tools used for a wide variety of perfectly legal things. And I don't know how I'm supposedly chauffeuring or directly assisting the arsonist, I think the analogy breaks down there unless you're accusing me of volunteering to help code for piracy site or something. What I am doing is screaming at you from the sidewalk "Hey, there's a guy setting your house on fire. It may be a good idea to make a strategic retreat for the time being."

"You are focusing on the wrong part of the issue. "
Wrong-o. As Leigh mentioned a few times to average_joe, this site focuses on how to maximize profits on IPs in a world where infringement occurs. If you want to endlessly just yap about how wrong infringement is (which no one seems to be debating) YOU are focusing on the wrong part of the issue, go somewhere else to dance the "Piracy is bad so we shouldn't have to find a solution" dance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Got it. So you would rather that there is widespread crime and we all hide in our homes, too scared to go out, rather than deal with it.

I suspect you also say "snitches get stiches".

"YOU are focusing on the wrong part of the issue, go somewhere else to dance the "Piracy is bad so we shouldn't have to find a solution" dance."

It's people like you that make it hard to have a discussion here. Look, you may not LIKE it, but you need to understand cause and effect. What is it that you pirate the most? Hollywood movies, American TV shows, and commercial label music. When nobody is paying for it anymore, what do you think happens?

Hint: You won't have anything new to pirate.

So when you have the discussion of right and wrong, you also need to have a little self interest. If you like the content, you should pay for at least some of it, otherwise there might not be any left.

If you don't see piracy as an issue, then I doubt you see any other crime as particularly important.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your constantly falling back on rape analogies is disgusting and immoral. You are not capable of having an adult conversation without reverting to shock and terror to make your points. You cannot compare rape with copyright infringement. There is no comparison to the two, and trying to do so makes you the monster in this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1) no, I would rather people realize that despite all the laws and all enforcement and all the morals in the world that sometimes murder, rape, theft, jaywalking, etc still happen and take measures to protect themselves.

2) no, I don't say that. Worst straw man ever.

3) oh, I disagree with you so I must be a filthy pirate too. Nice ad hom. Also, wrong. First off, even when there is no money to be made, people will make art, ever heard of a starving artist? Second, studies show pirates spend more on media than others. Third, as Mike's "sky is rising" report shows, more money than ever before is being spent on entertainment. A far cry from no one spending money on entertainment and the industry dying. lastly, as I've been saying the whole time the "point"of techdirt is maximizing revenue in a world where the evil of piracy exists. Just like locking your doors and buying a security system is about minimizing your chances of getting killed in your sleep by a deranged psychopath in a world where deranged psychopaths happen to exist.

4) I reallydon't know how many times I can say "I agree that piracy is wrong" and have you pretend I am in favor of it. We're not having a discussion about the rightness or wrongness of piracy. We agree it is wrong! The problem is I see it as an inevitably.

5) I do see piracy as an issue dumbass, thats why I've been going around in circles with you about it. Piracy is a crime and like other crimes, still happens even though it's not legal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"When nobody is paying for it anymore, what do you think happens?

Hint: You won't have anything new to pirate."

... OK, that's completely bull-crap. First off, as a writer and an artist, I make stuff for free for not only my enjoyment, but for those who are fans of the series that I like and others out there that might be interested in the stuff I like. I can create anything that I want, either a fan-fiction or an original story, and I could post it online for people to read or put a price on it and have people buy it (though I have yet to do that). Same goes for my art, again not having a price on my art. Then again, do I really need to put a price on my work?

Sure I might as well do it if I were to pursue it, but it's not like I'll make a true living off it. In fact, I could care less if my stuff is being pirated or not! It means that someone is looking at my stuff and they are curious about it. Sure it'll be nice to know who is looking at it, but I'm satisfy with people coming in and seeing what I have available for them. And personally I do like to have more positive reviews than negative, but having a few negatives isn't essentially a bad thing. If people do hate it then that will attract some people to see how it is bad.

I guess my point is that even though I create free stories and art online, it doesn't mean that there isn't anything good or bad being made today. There are seriously stuff being pumped onto the Internet constantly, no matter what it is, and some of it IS for free! Granted Sturgeon's Law is in effect, but there's always that 10% that is going to be worth it in the end. Even if Hollywood is still getting paid, it doesn't mean that money is going to go for something in that project. A large sum of cash =/= good quality. As I said, I create stuff for free and I let the people decide for themselves whether or not it is good. Even then, I do have a feeling that I create doesn't look good, but most of the time I believe that I am creating a good idea, even a great idea, and that helps me continue working to entertain those who love my work and the work I'm basing my ideas on.

Good or bad, stuff is being made and piracy is not the cause of it. Money isn't a problem. As long as humans can create something in their minds, they will find ways to get that idea out without the aid of money. Sure it's useful, but not all the time. ... You know, this kinda reminds me of a saying my drafting teacher once said:

Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

If no one can do that, then why bother doing anything? If you can't do one of those things, then perhaps you should stay behind. It's probably for the best.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Stop equating copyright infringement to things like rape, murder, theft, and vandalism. None of those things even come close to being analogous. Rape and murder are a violation of a person. When you commit those crimes, you alter a person that deprives them of what they were prior to the attack. Theft is a violation of possession of property. You take my bike I don't have it, copy my music files and I still have them. Vandalism alters my property in a way that makes it inaccessible in its prior form, depriving me of its original function. Copying works and sharing those copies does none of those things and it's grossly dishonest and despicable to try to connotate those topics. So stop it, immediately.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Average_Joe...reply to me again that rape is just as bad as copyright infringement. If you don't reply, you're a rape apologist.
I can actually call you out on this one because two of my sisters were raped. I am horrified, and they would be too, that you would dare to use what was done to them to further your copyright agenda.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sure, whatever, semantically speaking they are the "victims of piracy"

The difference is, you think that makes them weak and powerless, and that they should just resign themselves to their role as victim and wait for the friendly government to come save them.

We think that the same things causing piracy are presenting all kinds of opportunity, and that people can improve their situation much more by embracing that. We want to empower them -- you want them to feel powerless.

Let's not forget what type of "victim" we are talking about here. Say I take your view of piracy's impact entirely: so, what? These "victims" are facing the horrible fact that they have a harder time making money doing one particular thing that they want to do. They can still try to make money at it; they can still get out of bed in the morning; they can still do whatever they please; nobody is directly preventing them from doing anything or restricting their freedom in any way. They are just the victims of one particular wrongdoing that is interfering with their business/career model, perhaps even making it impossible for them to pursue that career in the way that they are accustomed to.

Sure, with that view, they are "victims". Seems like, as victimization goes, they are still doing pretty well -- much better than the rape victims you want to hyperbolically compare them to.

So, what... they should just refuse to get out of bed in the morning until it's all fixed? They should spend all day crying? What is your advice exactly? They should trudge around dejected, begging the government to fix everything for them? They should give up on pursuing the career they want until someone passes laws to make it easier?

Is that how you deal with it when life isn't going your way? Just because you're technically "in the right", you relinquish all personal responsibility, and even personal ambition, in favour of wearing your moral correctness like a badge and waiting for someone else to make all your problems go away? Even when there are others in your situation who seem to have gotten over their "victim" status, taken personal agency, and started solving their own problems by finding creative solutions... you'd rather do nothing, and complain?

Fine. But don't expect that to be our advice to artists. And if that's your advice to artists, then you're doing them a disservice, and it's shameful.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"We think that the same things causing piracy are presenting all kinds of opportunity, and that people can improve their situation much more by embracing that. We want to empower them -- you want them to feel powerless."

Actually, I want them empowered to stand up for their rights. You seem to want them cowed into doing business your way, at about 1% of the income, because it somehow makes you feel better about pirating stuff and lifting samples without giving credit.

" in favour of wearing your moral correctness like a badge and waiting for someone else to make all your problems go away? "

No, but I think this statement reveals a lot about you. When you have some moral fiber and some character, you don't run away from your beliefs the first time there is a little bad weather. Your suggests are all about giving up what you believe, because it's "easier" not to fight.

" you'd rather do nothing, and complain?"

Strawman! First, it's not "I" who will do anything one way or the other. But I think that it's really very sad that you feel that the other side of the debate offers up nothing. It also means it's very hard to have much of a discussion if you keep trying to put anyone that opposed you into a very small corner, calling them unmotivated and uninterested in advancing. Just because I don't think it's good to go down the path you are pointing at (rabidly, I might add), doesn't mean that I don't think there are directions to go.

The difference, perhaps, is that I understand that a truly big business with a lot of moving parts isn't going to change direction on a dime, especially when the direction you are pointing appears to be "give it away and pray" or "do something else other than sell your product".

Piracy actually makes it harder for those businesses to change direction, because anything that goes even somewhat in that direction goes against their best interests, at least from what they can see. It's extremely hard to make the case you are making to money people while keeping a straight face. They will be laughing you out of the room.

The advice to artists is more about using the tools AT THEIR DISCRETION. What truly sucks is a bunch of "fans" feel they know what is better, and have forced the choice onto the artists, like it or not. They have chosen to toss the artist business model out the window for them, and forced them to give away everything they do for free, for the chance (and only the chance) to maybe sell some concert tickets or swag. It's sad as hell that the "fans" don't have enough respect for their favorite artists to respect their choices.

Then again, I don't really expect anything that has to do with respect from you on this subject. You seem to think everyone else's hard work is just a nice little ledge to stand on and look big. That too is pretty sad.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why do you put the word victim in scare quotes. If somebody is having their rights willfully and purposefully violated by another person, then they are a victim. You can try and spin it all you want, but it really is that black and white. Techdirt tries to gloss over this simple fact, but the fact remains. Don't get mad at me for pointing out the obvious.

Stop blaming the victims, and start blaming the only side that is to blame for piracy--the pirates. I'll win the moral every single time. That's why you guys don't want to have it. When you take works that are for sale without paying for them, you are hurting the victims and you are violating their rights. Just admit that much and start from there.

Are there other business models out there? Sure. If your alternative models are so great, more people would be using them. Maybe one day everyone will. But until then, stop pretending like people following the business model where they sell the product that other people value (crazy!) are actually doing anything wrong. They aren't. The only ones doing anything wrong are the ones that violate other people's rights. It's really that simple.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are there other business models out there? Sure.

Very kind of you to tip your head to their legitimacy for once -- and yet, you refuse to actually talk about them. Instead, you hijack every post into an argument about the morals of piracy. You may notice that this is exactly my point here, and it's exactly what makes you a troll.

You really think being a victim is black and white? There are a lot of things to be a victim of, and I'd certainly choose some over others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Very kind of you to tip your head to their legitimacy for once -- and yet, you refuse to actually talk about them. Instead, you hijack every post into an argument about the morals of piracy. You may notice that this is exactly my point here, and it's exactly what makes you a troll.

If you have a business model that works for some people. Great. Good for you and good for them. It's the expecting that everyone else should use your alternative models where the problem begins. Prove to the world that your way is better. Nothing is stopping you from doing this. Copyright doesn't prohibit artists from giving their works away if they want to. If your way is better, others will follow. But until you get the world on your side, don't be so angry at the world for choosing a different path. And don't be angry at artists who choose to exercise their marketable right. And please stop pretending like the marketable right that copyright provides doesn't bring lots of great works into the world. It clearly does. Even most of the books that Techdirt uses in its book club are the product of the copyright business model. You guys can't even find more than a couple books published under your alternative models. That should tell you something about your models.

You really think being a victim is black and white? There are a lot of things to be a victim of, and I'd certainly choose some over others.

If a pirate chooses to violate someone's rights, then that someone is a victim. And only the pirate is to blame. Everything taught on Techdirt to the contrary is pirate-apologism. It's really that simple. I couldn't care less if you want to show people a route that you think is better. It's when you are so condescending and closed-minded to anyone that doesn't take your alternate route that the apologism kicks in. Techdirt is all about pirate-apologism. Day after day, post after post, copyright is torn to pieces and the virtues of piracy are defended and extolled. Rightholders who dare exercise their rights are mocked and belittled. Don't pretend even for one second that that's not the case. You can try and pretend like morality doesn't play into it, but the fact remains that Techdirt has taken the side of the pirates, and the pirates are amorally violating other people's rights. Considering the fact that you've chosen the amoral side of the argument, the fact that you don't want to talk about the morals isn't at all surprising.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes. You've made your point. The same point, over and over and over and over and over again. Are you done now? We don't agree, and we have all sorts of things we want to cover and talk about here. You just want to have one headbutting argument over and over again. It's obsessive, and childish. I don't spend all day commenting on the Trichordist and Copysense -- what could possibly motivate you to stick around? Just a sick need to disrupt conversation, and an insecure inability to accept that there are people out there who don't see things your way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1. Do you agree that if someone violates your rights, then that someone has acted immorally? If not, then which of your rights is it moral to violate?

To some degree, they have. But I don't see moral/immoral as a black and white thing. There are lots of instances of piracy that I don't think are immoral at all. It's technically immoral for me to break the law by jaywalking, if you subscribe to the view that all violations of written law are immoral, but I don't consider myself immoral for doing so. Morals and ethics are very, very subjective things -- hell, the classic thought experiment is: is it okay to steal bread to feed your starving family? People can debate that one for centuries and there will never be a conclusive "answer" to the question. So I find it silly, reductive and disingenuous to attempt to treat piracy as some sort of absolute moral wrong on par with murder or rape. It's simply not. And analogizing them makes you look ridiculous.

2. Do you agree that Techdirt is about A LOT more than just helping artists out in the digital age? Do you agree that Techdirt has thrust itself into the copyright wars?

Yeah, sure. We discuss lots of stuff. But it all stems from a fundamental mission to find sustainable business models and support open innovation. And yes, it also stems from some fundamental views about the purpose and efficacy of intellectual property laws, as well as the way culture actually works -- and yes, that has certain moral implications. The issue is your inability to do anything other than debate that fundamental philosophy, and drag every discussion back to that. If you are THAT diametrically opposed to every single pillar in the foundation of our philosophy here, I have no idea why you waste so much time debating us... except, once again, insecurity, and a childish desire to disrupt.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But jaywalking isn't violating someone's personal rights. It's violating a criminal law, sure, but it's not also a violation of any individual's rights. See the difference. If you're violating someone's personal rights, then you are acting immorally. And this isn't at all like trying to find food to feed a starving family. This is about entertainment--things that people can live without. No one *needs* the latest Harry Potter movie. The morality in this situation is a lot clearer than the questionable situations you allude to.

I'm glad you admit that Techdirt is about way more than just helping people out. Techdirt is at the forefront of the copyright debate. So be so surprised when people want to discuss copyright with you guys. Funny how Mike always runs away from such debates. He's so opinionated and so vocal, yet when questioned about his beliefs, he's nowhere to be found. Weird. And don't pretend for one second that all I want to talk about is the morality. That's one thing I want to talk about, because it disgusts me how you guys pretend like it's not an issue ("wrong or not, it doesn't matter!"). I ask Mike all sorts of questions, and he runs from them all. He refuses to ever discuss his personal beliefs about copyright directly with any detractor.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hahaha, so it's wrong to compare it to stealing food, but not wrong to compare it to murder or rape as you and others have repeatedly? Cognitive dissonance!

You say it's less severe because the motivation -- entertainment versus starvation -- is less sever. But you leave out the fact that the other half, the action itself -- copying versus theft -- is also far less severe. Great way to twist the facts to suit your point.

I ask Mike all sorts of questions, and he runs from them all. He refuses to ever discuss his personal beliefs about copyright directly with any detractor.

No need to crack this nut open again. You've gotten your responses from Mike plenty of times, and you will never ever be satisfied with them. If I were to stop talking right now, you'd accuse me of running from your questions -- even though you have asked the same question in slightly different ways a dozen times here, and gotten an answer from me every time. That's just your M.O.

Hahaha, so it's wrong to compare it to stealing food, but not wrong to compare it to murder or rape as you and others have repeatedly? Cognitive dissonance!

You say it's less severe because the motivation -- entertainment versus starvation -- is less sever. But you leave out the fact that the other half, the action itself -- copying versus theft -- is also far less severe. Great way to twist the facts to suit your point.

Do you have to debate like a child? I wasn't saying that property rights like copyright are the same kind of rights. You don't appear to understand how analogies work. Read it back over and see if you can see the analogy I was making. My point was that you can claim that any right is made up. So what? And I'm not saying it's less severe. I'm saying that you're trying to compare jaywalking, where no individual's rights are violated in the process, to copyright infringement, where someone's rights are violated. I think you need to recognize that there are different types of rights. Jaywalking is still wrong. So is infringement. But infringement violates an individual's rights.

No need to crack this nut open again. You've gotten your responses from Mike plenty of times, and you will never ever be satisfied with them. If I were to stop talking right now, you'd accuse me of running from your questions -- even though you have asked the same question in slightly different ways a dozen times here, and gotten an answer from me every time. That's just your M.O.

Against someone who just openly admitted they are basing their position on opinions from when they were four years old? Yes, I feel I do.

I said that some moral things are so basic and so obvious that I've known them to be true since I was a child. You're really sounding like a child yourself with this line of argument.

Not long ago you said rights are rights and it's always wrong to violate them, and it's black and white and simple. Now suddenly there are different types of rights?

There have always been different kinds of rights. There's this thing that smart people do called "classification." They don't put all rights into one category, but instead they separate them into different types of rights. Crazy, I know.

There have always been different kinds of rights. There's this thing that smart people do called "classification." They don't put all rights into one category, but instead they separate them into different types of rights. Crazy, I know.

And yet, just a couple comments ago you said:

As far as saying which rights are more important than others, I don't see the point. Either someone has the right, or they don't.

I don't see a lot of point in debating someone who can't remain consistent over a 5-minute span whenever it suits their argument to wiffle-waffle

As far as saying which rights are more important than others, I don't see the point. Either someone has the right, or they don't.

I don't see a lot of point in debating someone who can't remain consistent over a 5-minute span whenever it suits their argument to wiffle-waffle

I said that rights are classified into different types. They are. I also said that a right is a right and it doesn't matter what type of right it is. For example, it doesn't matter which right of yours is at issue, I wouldn't violate it and I wouldn't support anyone else who does. Whether your property right or your free speech rights, I think your rights are important. I haven't wiffle-waffled. Just because you don't understand something, don't assume that others don't. Google the word "right" and get back to me. It's clear that you've never even noticed that there's different types of rights and at this point you're just trying to argue any little silly point you think you can make.

If rights are all equal, the point of classifying them is what exactly?

at this point you're just trying to argue any little silly point you think you can make

Yes, you have ignored all my substantive replies, and repeated the same statements over and over again, to the point that I've given up responding in detail and now favour pointing out all the dozens of little indicators that you are making this up as you go along and that your view is childish, simplistic and inconsistent. Now you can claim that I'm ignoring you and refusing to answer, just like how you claim Mike runs away from you! And I'm sure just as many people will believe it -- so like, those two ACs and bob.

There have always been different kinds of rights. There's this thing that smart people do called "classification." They don't put all rights into one category, but instead they separate them into different types of rights. Crazy, I know.

I feel like you're (throughout this thread) very loosely tossing around the term "right", and it would not surprise me at all to discover that you were doing so intentionally, to confuse the subject.

Much like using the word "theft" to describe copyright infringement, you are trying to manipulate people by claiming that copyright infringement is taking away someone's "rights", not-so-subtly equating it with rights like freedom of religion and speech.

As has been said already in these comments- if tomorrow all of congress decided to ban together and abolish copyright protections, no one's "rights" would be violated. Congress has the power, but not the mandate, to institute incentives to create. However, if tomorrow congress decided to ban together and abolish freedom of speech protections, it would violate many people's rights.

I assume that because you're in law school, you know all of this, so why are you intentionally attempting to complicate an already complex issue with emotionally manipulative word choices?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mr. Masnick's views about copyright have been expressed here on many occasions. To state it in simple terms, monopolies are economically unsound and unwarranted. Of course, this assumes that copyrights are "monopolies".

Apart from ecomonic-based arguments, legal arguments are likewise expressed with ever increasing
frequency, "censorship" and "due process" being but two examples.

It is the later arguments to which comments such as yours are generally directed, and it is with respect to such arguments that the principals here and many, if not most, commenters continually conflate economic versus legal arguments.

Only microsoft can provide windows, if anyone else manufactured and sold it there would be lagal action taken.

Sure we treat such monopolies different due to special curcumstances(windows would not exist without microsoft while the apples I mentione earlier are earth babbies that are naturally formed). However, this does not make it any less a monopoly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You keep referring to infringement as violating someone's rights. This is not true and the point you are missing. Copyright is the name of the law, not a human right or civil right, just the name of an outdated law. An example of someone's rights being violated is when free speech is taken down do to a bogus copyright claim(DCMA).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You keep referring to infringement as violating someone's rights. This is not true and the point you are missing. Copyright is the name of the law, not a human right or civil right, just the name of an outdated law. An example of someone's rights being violated is when free speech is taken down do to a bogus copyright claim(DCMA).

Huh? If you are violating copyright law, you are violating someone's rights. This is undebatable fact. You aren't violating a human right (in this country; whatever that means) or a civil right, but you are violating someone's right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You've made your point. The same point, over and over and over and over and over again. Are you done now? "

Same question for you Marcus. You have made your point ad nauseum, you have proven to be incredibly stubborn and single minded about things. You have proven to have a closed mind.

Apparently, the only way the business models you push work is to first kill off the most successful models with piracy. When that is done, you can come in with your pennies on the dollar strategy and it will look like a winner.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Techdirt's position is that the successful of the world of yesteryear are not the successful model of today.

And of course the model based on a goverment monopoly will be more successful than without monopoly, doesn't mean that's how the would should work

Yeah, 'cause selling a product that people absolutely love and want is a terrible business model. Give me a break. The content providers are creating products that everyone wants so much that people are willing to break the law to get it. They have every right to sell that product and not give it away. Just because it's easy to take it without paying doesn't mean that they have to change their model. Why aren't you demanding that the pirates stop taking what they haven't paid for?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Have you ever met a tautological argument you didn't slobber all over?

How is tautological to state that if Person A violates Person B's rights, then Person B is a victim? I know you won't answer.

If you can't make a LOGICAL argument, but instead resort to insanity like the above, it's really really difficult to take you seriously.

Again, how is it insane to point out the obvious? If a pirate is violating someone's rights, then someone is a victim of that pirate's actions. I know you won't answer.

Since you're so focused on the Socratic method: if someone has their copyright infringed upon, yet ends up better off because of it, are they a victim?

The question itself is suspect. Are you implying that pirates are doing their victims a favor? But what if the victim doesn't want their rights to be violated? Does it matter then that you, Mike Masnick, think they are better off? Or should we just respect people's wishes when it comes to their rights? I think the answer is obviously, "yes."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

How is tautological to state that if Person A violates Person B's rights, then Person B is a victim? I know you won't answer.

You are arguing that it infringing automatically creates a victim. I am questioning if that's true. Your argument is that because the law is infringed, they're automatically a victim. I don't see it that way.

Again, how is it insane to point out the obvious?

I don't see it as obvious at all. I see a tautology that ignores reality.

If a pirate is violating someone's rights, then someone is a victim of that pirate's actions. I know you won't answer.

Would you give up the bullshit "I know you won't answer" claims. Stop acting like a fucking five year old.

The point is that you keep insisting that any violation of the law is a violation of someone's rights, and people are questioning why that's the case, and the only answer you give is because you say it is.

The question itself is suspect.

From the master of asking suspect questions. You make me laugh.

Are you implying that pirates are doing their victims a favor?

No, I'm asking a simple question: is there really a victim if they're better off?

But what if the victim doesn't want their rights to be violated?

You're asking a different question and one that we've pointed out 100 times is not particularly important.

Case in point: I think you're not particularly smart and I'd honestly prefer that you stop polluting my comments with bogus comments that distract from important discussions.

My wishes were that you stop polluting my blog. And I've asked you this directly in the past so you know it. Yet you violate my wishes.

Do you believe you have violated my rights by ignoring my wishes?

I think we'd both agree that you have not. Because wishes and rights are two separate things.

And that's the point that you ignore.

Or should we just respect people's wishes when it comes to their rights? I think the answer is obviously, "yes."

Again you try to impart your morals on others. I agree, which is why I do not infringe (on purpose, at least) that it is proper to respect the wishes of the content creator. But I don't see it as a meaningful discussion to talk about convincing everyone else what their morals should be.

It's pointless. Yet you slam us for wanting to focus on something productive rather than something pointless. No offense, but that's silly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are arguing that it infringing automatically creates a victim. I am questioning if that's true. Your argument is that because the law is infringed, they're automatically a victim. I don't see it that way.

Yes, Mike. If someone willfully violates your personal rights, in my mind you are a victim. It worries me that you think someone's personal rights could be violated yet they aren't a victim. Since we're talking about rights, this is a legal issue, not an economic one.

I don't see it as obvious at all. I see a tautology that ignores reality.

It's not tautological since it's not repetitive. It's a conditional statement. The reality is that if Person A has his rights violated, Person A is a victim simpliciter.

Would you give up the bullshit "I know you won't answer" claims. Stop acting like a fucking five year old.

The point is that you keep insisting that any violation of the law is a violation of someone's rights, and people are questioning why that's the case, and the only answer you give is because you say it is.

You've dodged my questions thousands of times. You're doing so again in these very comments where you refuse to answer the question, which is whether in your opinion deliberately piracy against the copyright holder's wishes is per se immoral. So don't pretend like there's no basis for me pointing out the fact that you don't answer questions. You rarely answer the hard ones.

There is no question: If someone's copyright rights have been violated by a pirate, then that someone's rights have been violated. The fact that you think this is even debatable is hilarious. Infringement is by definition the violation of someone's rights.

No, I'm asking a simple question: is there really a victim if they're better off?

Yes, if someone doesn't want their rights to be violated, then they are a victim. It matters not that you, Mike Masnick, think they are or could be better off. We don't get to violate other people's property rights with the defense that we're doing them a favor. The issue you're talking about would go to damages, not liability. The infringer is always liable. That's what I'm talking about.

You're asking a different question and one that we've pointed out 100 times is not particularly important.

And yet that it goes against the owner's wishes is the ONLY reason you are able to give for why piracy is not OK. Now you're saying that it's "not particularly important." Shocker.

Case in point: I think you're not particularly smart and I'd honestly prefer that you stop polluting my comments with bogus comments that distract from important discussions. My wishes were that you stop polluting my blog. And I've asked you this directly in the past so you know it. Yet you violate my wishes. Do you believe you have violated my rights by ignoring my wishes? I think we'd both agree that you have not. Because wishes and rights are two separate things. And that's the point that you ignore.

Always with the insults. You allow people to post comments on your blog. I post comments. Am I violating your rights? Nope.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The problem with saying rights violated = victim is you yourself said that rights violated are defined by law and by that insane logic we could define a right that would not harm the victim if violated and yet they're still "vitctims"

The problem with saying rights violated = victim is you yourself said that rights violated are defined by law and by that insane logic we could define a right that would not harm the victim if violated and yet they're still "vitctims"

Trespass on my lawn, pulling up weeds and making it more beautiful in the process, and you've still violated my rights and done me wrong.

Trespass on my lawn, pulling up weeds and making it more beautiful in the process, and you've still violated my rights and done me wrong.

This is an excellent example! While some people may think it's wrong to go against the owner's wishes, it is easily arguable that the owner is better off. The "rights" violated did no measurable or provable harm, however, the benefits of having those rights violated is easily quantifiable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, Mike. If someone willfully violates your personal rights, in my mind you are a victim. It worries me that you think someone's personal rights could be violated yet they aren't a victim. Since we're talking about rights, this is a legal issue, not an economic one.

Yet in this thread you also admit that slavery was immoral, but freeing the slaves meant taking away someone's property too, you realize?

It's not tautological since it's not repetitive. It's a conditional statement. The reality is that if Person A has his rights violated, Person A is a victim simpliciter.

No, it's tautological because you're saying if Person A has his rights violated than Person A has his rights violated. I'm questioning the implicit assumptions in that statement, because it's meaningless to argue by tautology. It shows someone who has no faith in the reality of the situation.

You've dodged my questions thousands of times. You're doing so again in these very comments where you refuse to answer the question, which is whether in your opinion deliberately piracy against the copyright holder's wishes is per se immoral.

Perfect example of why debating with you is pointless. There's no such thing as "per se immoral." Morality is not a black or white situation, as you yourself admit later in this thread. Yet you aim to hold me to this "have you stopped beating your wife" standard, which is a logical fallacy only put forth by those who have no argument at all.

Yes, if someone doesn't want their rights to be violated, then they are a victim.

As I stated, I don't want you posting to this blog any more, because you're disruptive, not constructive. You are violating my wishes. Why do you hold such a double standard.

This is my property. You are violating my rights.

Come on, hold yourself to a consistent standard and go away.

We don't get to violate other people's property rights with the defense that we're doing them a favor.

Nor have I argued that. Why do you lie so consistently? I am not saying it's a defense. I'm asking if there's really a victim. And you are arguing a tautology in response that they're a victim because they're a victim. That's not an argument. It's someone who has no argument.

And yet that it goes against the owner's wishes is the ONLY reason you are able to give for why piracy is not OK. Now you're saying that it's "not particularly important." Shocker.

Right. And I explained in great detail at the time why it's not important. So my position has remained consistent. In fact, because I spent time trying to explain the basic nuance to you, you pretended I hadn't answered the question. But I was pointing out to you that you were asking a meaningless question in my answer. And now that I repeat that point -- that you were asking a totally stupid and meaningless question -- you seem to think you've caught me in something.

You haven't. You're asking pointless and stupid questions.

Here: let's say, hypothetically, I believe that being a total fucking douchenozzle in my comments is the most immoral thing ever. Then what? Would that magically stop some people from being total fucking douchenozzles? No. So why bother arguing over the morals.

Always with the insults. You allow people to post comments on your blog. I post comments. Am I violating your rights? Nope.

By your definition, fuck yeah you are. You said violating their wishes violates their rights. So, you're violating my rights. Deal with it.

Yet in this thread you also admit that slavery was immoral, but freeing the slaves meant taking away someone's property too, you realize?

That's right. You found one situation where I think it is immoral, and it's the extreme example of where the property is human beings. That's been against the law for almost a century and a half, and has nothing to do with widespread, wholesale copyright infringement. But you did in fact identify an exception to my rule.

No, it's tautological because you're saying if Person A has his rights violated than Person A has his rights violated. I'm questioning the implicit assumptions in that statement, because it's meaningless to argue by tautology. It shows someone who has no faith in the reality of the situation.

Huh? I'm pointing out that if someone has had their copyright rights violated, then that person is a victim. It's a conditional statement, not a tautology (I majored in logic, you know, so give me a break). Regardless, can you explain your theory that someone who has had their copyright rights violated is not a victim?

Perfect example of why debating with you is pointless. There's no such thing as "per se immoral." Morality is not a black or white situation, as you yourself admit later in this thread. Yet you aim to hold me to this "have you stopped beating your wife" standard, which is a logical fallacy only put forth by those who have no argument at all.

How does the correctness of my "per se immoral" have anything to do with your hemming and hawing and refusal to answer the question? Regardless, please tell me your personal opinion. Please answer the question. Your point that it's not "per se" is well received. When I ask you about the morality of infringement, I'm referring only to wholesale copyright infringement. My favorite example is downloading a Harry Potter movie rather for free rather than paying for it. I'm not talking about creative uses such as fair use.

As I stated, I don't want you posting to this blog any more, because you're disruptive, not constructive. You are violating my wishes. Why do you hold such a double standard.

This is my property. You are violating my rights.

Come on, hold yourself to a consistent standard and go away.

Please point to the right of yours I am violating. Quote me the statute or case law or whatever it is. You cannot, because I am not violating your rights. And what's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement?

Nor have I argued that. Why do you lie so consistently? I am not saying it's a defense. I'm asking if there's really a victim. And you are arguing a tautology in response that they're a victim because they're a victim. That's not an argument. It's someone who has no argument.

I'm saying that all rightholders who have their rights violated are victims. If you disagree, then state why. I personally don't see how they are anything but a victim. It would only be a tautology if I said they were the same thing. They're not. All copyright holders who have their rights violated are victims, but not all victims are copyright holders. I think you base whether they're a victim on whether they are harmed. That only goes to damages. I'm talking about liability. Do you understand the difference? If you have reasoning for saying some people who have their copyright rights violated aren't victims, feel free to explain.

By your definition, fuck yeah you are. You said violating their wishes violates their rights. So, you're violating my rights. Deal with it.

I've NEVER said that. I said that if it's illegal, then it violates their rights. Whether it goes against their wishes is a separate matter. But I have never said that violating someone's wishes, without more, is a violation of that person's rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If a pirate is violating someone's rights, then someone is a victim of that pirate's actions."

OK Joe, I have to ask you this: how is this possible? From how I am seeing this, it is as if the pirate is reaching out and violating the person over the Internet, instead of going after the goods. OK, I should elaborate on this:

I imagine seeing Person A coming up to Person B and noticed that Person B has an iPod. Person A takes it and claims it for himself. OK, I could see that if Person A takes Person B's iPod and says that Person B can't have and/or use it anymore, then Person B has lose his rights to that iPod. But that isn't stopping him from buying another one. Then there's the thought that Person A comes up and flashes a cloning device that makes him a physical copy of the iPod. Sure Person B can sound off in not having his iPod being copy, but that will make him look like a clingy child.

However, if Person A were to meet up with Person B and threaten him about his creative abilities and cut off his hands, then he's violating a person's rights. If he takes a few steps up, Person A goes from taking away a person's rights to create to taking a person's rights to live. If Person A does not touch the iPod and only focused on Person B, then there's your violation of rights.

Now you may think that this might be a bad analogy, but it's better than comparing murder and rape to digital copying. There are serious repercussions when it comes to murder and rape, especially when more than one person has be violated, when copying is just making a duplicate of a file. Seriously, where is the harm in having one extra, identical file?

Bottom line: If a person is doing actual harm to another person, there are violations. If someone made a copy of a file, then there's no real harm. Copying =/= violations of human rights!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Fine then, average_joe. Tell me what content you've made, so I'll know to completely ignore it if I happen to come across it. I'll tell my friends to completely ignore it as well, and since they trust what I say, they'll do so.
Which hurts more? Being completely unknown, at your own request, or the loss of imaginary dollars?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I know this is a late reply, but he has asked to be unknown. He has asked for us not to consume his work at all without paying. Fine. Since I don't like the guy, I'd like to know what works he's made so I can avoid them like the plague. I have influence with other people and they will more than likely listen to me when I say "Avoid this guy".
Since he's made a completely closed statement (no pay, no consume) I can only assume that means no demos for example, if he's a game-maker, no samples, if he's a musician, no trailers, if he's a video maker.
Infringement is one way to promote your works. Dozens of times I and my friends have infringed and then later on gone to buy the work in question.

And no, I'm not Japanese, I just chose the name Rikuo because it's the name of a character I love from a Japanese work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Again, you're imposing a moral conversation where it doesn't belong."

I am sorry, but that just isn't reasonable. Since most laws have a basis in moral standards, it's hard to separate the two. In fact, when you strip away the moral angle on almost any theft law, you lose it's meaning, context, and point.

Eliminate the moral, and theft, murder, and everything else is acceptable. Wait, you say "murder isn't acceptable because someone dies!". You would be right, but you have to look at it the same way you look at piracy: You didn't get hurt, you got what you wanted, so it's not bad. Absent morals, you cannot measure murder as being bad if you only look at it from your side.

Murder is only wrong when you apply a moral standard to it, when you start to have empathy for others. Morals are all about not living only for one's self.

Since most of our laws trace themselves all the way back to variations on the 10 commandments, it's pretty hard to escape the moral side of things. You can perhaps do it in a clinical debate about technically right and wrong, but you cannot remove it from actual interactions between people.

Perhaps that hits it right there. Online, you don't have to see the person you are stealing from. You don't have to see the implications of your actions first hand. Perhaps it's a bit like Ender's Game, it's all fun when you don't realize actual people are dying. Remember there, they could only make it work out provided there was no moral judgement applied.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You've never read the Old Testament, at all, have you? I have, cover to cover. Even after the Ten Commandants were used, slavery was still sanctioned (and no, it had nothing to do with whether or not it made you a "god" over them).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, given that at no point in history has a judge said that copyright infringement equalled theft...

Given that when the Ten Commandments were written, there was no copyright, so arguing copyright now in the context of the Ten Commandments is completely useless and laughable.

And what do you mean, a copy of Moses? Would he clone Moses?

Ohh....now I see what you meant. In your haste to try and prove me wrong, you forgot one important thing: you forgot to put context around the word Moses. You forgot to say what exactly was being copied! When you're debating someone, its important to be precise, otherwise the other guy will easily be able to pick apart what you're saying and show you to be the fool you are.
Now, I can only presume you are talking about the Old Testament. I would presume Jesus would, in his day, want people to buy copies of the Old Testament, because in that time period, because the act of making copies was difficult back then, was a specialized skill and so it made sense to reward people for their work in copying.
Not so nowadays. Today, everyone can copy and thus saying its wrong for me to copy because you can't make money in your copying racket is wrong.

And no, I'm not a hypocrite who hides behind their Bible. I'm not a member of any of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity or Islam). I gave up my faith in organized religions after studying their texts cover to cover and found them contradictory to say the least.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Slavery is the more complex one, but it goes back to item 1 or 2 on the list. Slavery by definition makes you a form of god over someone else, which is not permitted.

You do have to remember that in the time of the bible, slavery was considered a normal state of affairs. They also considered wives to be proprety. These are both moral oversights that we have managed to correct in the last couple of thousand years.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

" We're discussing economics."

Yes, in the same manner that a doctor might discuss cancer in a seminar. It's different when you HAVE cancer, though. The problem is that your discussion of economics isn't at all attached to reality, and because you ignore reality, your discussion is theoretical and impractical.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Interesting. So you're suggesting that doctors in seminars about cancer shouldn't objectively focus on the nature of cancer, what works and what doesn't, but they should cry about how cancer is horrible and evil and killing people *tears* *shakefist at sky* DAMN YOU CANCER!

Good thing doctors are such horrible dirty immoralpiratethieves and instead try to have constructive talks about cancer!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"And then there's articles like this one, where you reiterate the mantra that "wrong or not, it really doesn't matter" and "focusing on morals is missing the point." That's not simply discussing how people can be better off. That's pirate apologism."

OF COURSE we're only discussing how people can be better off. The lack of anything else is your problem with us.

In contrast, you're not offering ANY thoughts about how people can be better off. That's the weakness of any reactionary superstitious position - they eliminate the possibility of improvement.

The lack of moralizing does not mean the lack of morality. Teaching evolution is not atheism apologism. Birth control counseling is not abortion apologism.

Also, even if I grant for the sake of argument that "piracy" is unfair, calling it "rights being violated" is a huge stretch. People outright steal from one another and disrupt each other's revenue streams all the time in every industry. It's frustrating and upsetting but it's legal and moral. BEING A GOOD PERSON DOES NOT MEAN NEVER HURTING ANYONE.

People will always be right on the edge of any copyright law because everybody is always on the edge of every law. "Accept it because it's human nature" in this case does not mean "boys will be boys." It is a recognition that we are free to do whatever we are not expressly forbidden to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

An exactly copy of the copyrighted work of a creator is not you arranging bits on a hard drive in any manner you see fit. It is you deliberately copying another's arrangement of bits on you computer for the purpose of capturing an identical copy of the unique, creative output of that creator without compensating him and in violation of his human rights and the law. Seriously, you should examine the contortions you go through to freeload and violate someone's human rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Okay, try this argument out.

Let's say you have...a painting on canvas. I then bring my own canvas, paints and brushes, set them up next to your painting and (somehow) proceed to make an identical copy of your painting.
Why should I compensate you? Your work is still there, you can still use it. I have not touched your painting at all or done anything at all to it.
Now, let's add the word "computer" to the mix. Suddenly, that's when all hell breaks loose and copying is the greatest sin possible.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In making an exact duplicate (impossible in painting, but I will let you enjoy your concept) you would be violating copyright on the picture.

See, if you painted it only from memory, and painted it wrong, it would be your work. In duplication, you add nothing. Worse, later on you drop dead and your family sells your duplicate as an original, fulfilling the lie.

Don't you think that the value of the original piece is reduced when their are duplicates?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Really? Then...the Mona Lisa must be worth nothing then. There have been countless duplicates made of it, and yet, somehow, it is still priceless. Perhaps because its the original, which is something that simply cannot be copied.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Conflating basic human rights with the first world privilege that is copyright illustrates the problem with your priorities.

When more people have their actual human rights of life, liberty, free speech, etc. attended to, we can start talking about the "right" to stop people from copying non-exclusive, infinitely reproducible expressions of culture and art.

I hope you're recognize and enjoy how high up you are on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs that this is what you have to complain about.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

An exactly copy of the copyrighted work of a creator is not you arranging bits on a hard drive in any manner you see fit.

Um, that's exactly what is it. Literally.

violation of his human rights

Bzzzzt, wrong. Even if I accepted IP law (which I don't), it's clear that the intent of granting such a monopoly in the US is about maximizing the public interest, and not about the creators' "human rights".

Re: Re: Re:

Labeling anyone who reminds you of an uncomfortable truth a "troll" says more about you than it does about them.

Falsely labeling him, who calls out certain trolls for what they are, as someone who calls anyone who disagrees with him a troll says more about you than it does about him. It's especially ironic since you seem to be considering yourself as someone being on the moral high ground (which you're not).

As for uncomfortable truths: obviously the majority does not care about the moral issue you guys keep whining about nor will focussing on it help anyone to stop piracy or make more money.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Morality does not have to guide the law either.

Only 3 of the 10 commandments are currently fully backed with legal force (killing, theft and perjury).

The trend is also against such laws.

Commandments 1-3 are not enforced in any state that allows freedom of religion (as the US has from day one - although many states had such laws in the middle ages.
Commandment 4 (the sabbath) is not really strongly enforced these days - although it was until comparatively recently.
commandment 5 is difficult to write into law. Number 7 is not enforced in the West these days - although some middle eastern countries still do. Number 10 is impossible to write into law because it takes place in your head...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Morals vary from person to person, but I think that it would be hard to find someone, except for a full on criminal, that thinks that stealing, or obtaining something that is not rightfully yours without permission is acceptable.

Can you imagine the world where that basic concept was not respected? Pretty much everything you have built your life on would be lost. Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth and ownership of property. What would happen if nobody respected that?

The moral question is also important, because it exposes the weakness in the argument. Why piracy? Mostly, it's "because I want it now, I can't get it now, or don't want to pay now... so I just take it". In order to do that, you have to blow off the moral limits on taking what is not rightfully yours.

In the case of Marcus, he is quite simple: He doesn't consider any of it to be property, so he has created a nice little moral blank spot where he can pirate himself into a tizzy without any issue. It's why he doesn't want to discuss the moral implications, because he would first have to admit his own lack of morals on the subject.

What Marcus is essentially doing is writing things that continue to support and justify is moral blank spot, basking in the "hell yeahs!" of the Techdirt choir, and purposefully ignoring any of the implications of his actions because it would actually make him have to consider how he got here.

It's classic in many ways, trying to have a discussion by taking something and removing all the context, and then getting mad when people try to point out that the context is key.

No wonder there are about 400 or so comments here. I have never seen Marcus work so hard to try to shout things down, and when he ran out of energy, Mike came in to attack and insult more. Yet all the time, they are still not accepting or even considering the context of piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Floorboard guy here. I tried to click the "Get insider chat" button using the latest version of chrome and didn't get so much as a javascript error. Like it returned 0 on exception. Hell kinda tech blog is this? I'm drunk and ready to spend good money, and you're not letting me.

Re:

Economically speaking, it doesn't matter if it's moral or amoral. Morally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Legally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Realistically speaking, it doesn't matter if it's moral, legal, or right. You see how nothing actually relates in this situation? The fact that you won't acknowledge the fact that reality does not line up with the law any more speaks volumes about you.

Here's where you may be getting confused. Copyright isn't actually a right, it's a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public. So when you start talking morality, you're already off track when talking about copyright. If you want to talk morality, then it's moral to ignore copyright because copyright itself has become amoral (wasn't when it was created, now it is).

As for trolls, while you may bring an argument or two to the table, the people you chose to defend demonize and dehumanize themselves. They chose to come here, insult everyone indiscriminately, ignore any logic, and then leave without providing responses, logic, or evidence of their own. We don't do that to them, we just follow the path they laid out for themselves.

Re: Re:

Copyright isn't actually a right, it's a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public.

Personally, I would take this a step further back and point out that copyright is a suspension of everyone else's right to do as they please with elements of culture, that there is no inherent exclusive natural right to exclude others from copying your book or song or whatever. It is, instead, an artificial marketplace convenience founded on suspending everyone else's natural rights.

If you want to get moral about it, copyright is a slight immorality that we all tolerate so long as copyright results in a net benefit to society.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can I decide which of your rights I'll respect, Rodent? And would it be wrong of me to violate one of your rights because I had some way of rationalizing that you really shouldn't have right to begin with?

This is basic stuff, and you guys seem unwilling to even admit that violating other people's rights is wrong.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Joe...forget the fact your "rights" are being violated.

The discussion that is here on Techdirt day in and day out is...Copyright infringement happens, so what are you going to do to benefit from it?
We don't care about the "MY RIGHTS IZ VIOLATED" argument. We care about being smart and working out how to benefit from it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"...you guys seem unwilling to even admit that violating other people's rights is wrong."

The discussion is only about copyright, not actualrights, which nobody has suggested be violated. You seem to think copyright is on par with fundamental human rights, but you could not be more wrong. It's way down the pecking order, both in importance and current level of public respect.

Re: Re: Re:

Personally, I would take this a step further back and point out that copyright is a suspension of everyone else's right to do as they please with elements of culture, that there is no inherent exclusive natural right to exclude others from copying your book or song or whatever. It is, instead, an artificial marketplace convenience founded on suspending everyone else's natural rights.

If you want to get moral about it, copyright is a slight immorality that we all tolerate so long as copyright results in a net benefit to society.

Yep. Without copyright laws, people could copy as they please. But there is in fact copyright, and people cannot copy as they please. Without laws against murder, people could murder as they please. But there is in fact laws against murder, and people cannot murder as they please.

You can call the copyright rights artificial just like you can call the right to not be murdered artificial. So what? All rights are artificial.

And if copyright is something that "we all tolerate," then why are so many people pirates? And who are you to decide for yourself that copyright doesn't benefit society? You are only one person, and if you don't agree with a law then tough. People don't get to decide which laws are worth respecting and who's rights are OK to violate.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't think you or the others get it at all. Techdirt is right there day after day telling everyone all the apologist nonsense they need so they'll keep on thinking that piracy is really just swell. Instead of pumping out article after article trying to explain away the wrongness of piracy, why don't you guys start from the fundamental truth that pirates are willfully violating other people's rights and that they shouldn't do so because it is fundamentally wrong? But you and Mike and the others will never do that. You'll never write even one article that doesn't take a pro-piracy point of view, and then you'll keep on pretending that Techdirt isn't pro-piracy. "Pro-piracy? Not us! Never!" It's silly and dishonest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Personally, I fundamentally disagree with the notion of copyright as a "human right". But that's part of the fact that the whole concept of "human rights" has spun out of control to the point that the phrase is meaningless.

And I only bring up the moral and natural rights in response to people who insist this is a simple moral question -- because it's not. Few are. I know you'd love it to be as black and white as murder (which is not even perfectly black and white itself, as the huge variety of specific laws and variable sentences linked to it attest) but it's not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

We're not here to preach morals and ethics at people. We're here to find practical solutions. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Clearly Techdirt does a lot more than just help people find practical solutions. Techdirt has clearly taken an extreme position in the copyright wars. There's article after article where anything pro-copyright is derided, where the victims of infringement are blamed for what the pirates consciously decide to do to them, where anybody who dares to say or think anything positive about copyright is torn to pieces, where the pirates who get caught are always defending to the bitter end no matter what, where even the thought of any new law changing copyright or providing rightholders with any kind of new enforcement mechanism is torn apart, etc.

For you to pretend that the only thing Techdirt does is help people find solutions is disingenuous. Techdirt is the go-to place for hardcore, extremist anti-copyright propaganda. Give me a break with the stupid "we're only trying to help people" argument. It's sad.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"where the victims of infringement are blamed for what the pirates consciously decide to do to them"

See what you did there? It's extreme because you disagree with it because it's extreme because you disagree with it.

You have no argument that supports your assertions that the "infringed-upon" deserve victim status or that pirates are doing anything to them. You are only saying you believe it like some believe in leprechauns.

You can't just say things, you have to offer facts to support them. The facts of this case to date point uniformly toward an opposite interpretation, which is why fact-reporters appear biased to you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Very well then, this site makes it a point of noting the success certain individuals have achieved embracing the economics of "free". It has been noted, however, that such business models do not easily translate over to other industries such as software (other than, perhaps, open source and the like). What say you to all those companies, big and small, whose livelihood depends upon the creation and sale of such software? Some specific ideas, please.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you're asking me (I can't conveniently view this in threaded view any longer), then I don't know. Telling people what business model to use is not what I do. Nor do I care to. I'm interested in the law and theory of copyright. I leave the business stuff to the folks who do business stuff.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Telling people what business model to use is not what I do. Nor do I care to. I'm interested in the law and theory of copyright. I leave the business stuff to the folks who do business stuff.

If you don't understand the "business stuff" you'll never understand copyright -- because copyright is a *BUSINESS* monopoly privilege provided by the gov't. It does not exist outside of the business realm.

No wonder it's so difficult to discuss this stuff with you. You want to ignore the crux of what copyright is all about... and then focus on the meaningless part.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you don't understand the "business stuff" you'll never understand copyright -- because copyright is a *BUSINESS* monopoly privilege provided by the gov't. It does not exist outside of the business realm.

I understand the law (doctrines, theory, and jurisprudence) better than you, and yet I'm not a business person. I haven't studied business formally. You have an MBA. You approach it from a business perspective. I have JD. I approach it from a law perspective.

No wonder it's so difficult to discuss this stuff with you. You want to ignore the crux of what copyright is all about... and then focus on the meaningless part.

And you refuse to discuss the law part, instead focused on only business end of things. Your approach to the law is to first decide what you think the correct answer is, and then to try and make the law fit into your predetermined answer. That's working backwards. Unlike you, I'm able to analyze a legal problem without starting with my answer. They're different approaches, Mike. No need to be all uppity and insulting because I approach things differently than you. I recognize that multiple points of view, including views that are different than my own, are important and productive. You just mock anyone and anything that's different.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I understand the law (doctrines, theory, and jurisprudence) better than you, and yet I'm not a business person. I haven't studied business formally. You have an MBA. You approach it from a business perspective. I have JD. I approach it from a law perspective.

Hilarious. When I made this exact point to you in the past, you mocked me mercilessly during one of your tirades.

And you refuse to discuss the law part, instead focused on only business end of things. Your approach to the law is to first decide what you think the correct answer is, and then to try and make the law fit into your predetermined answer. That's working backwards.

Wait, figuring out what the *best result is* and then trying to make sure policy creates that result is "working backwards"? Really? No, figuring out what "promotes the progress" is not working backwards. It's doing what we're supposed to be doing.

Unlike you, I'm able to analyze a legal problem without starting with my answer. They're different approaches, Mike. No need to be all uppity and insulting because I approach things differently than you.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

Shall I break out the list of times you've told me to "fuck off and die" or called me "pirate mike" or told me that I was a "dishonest piece of shit" or any other such insult just because I didn't answer a question you asked in the precise manner you wanted me to answer it?

AJ, you do not recognize multiple points of view at all. You never have. You come here solely to disrupt legitimate conversation because they don't support your world view. That's the definition of a troll.

I don't bug you where you work. Why do you act so dishonest where I work?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wait...he has a JD...and has said that Copyright is in the Constitution?
Joe...what university did you get your JD from? I'd like to tell them what you're saying. No JD worth his salt would ever make stupid comments like yours. It's like a medical doctor saying "All bacteria are bad and do bad stuff". If I ever heard a MD say something like that, I'd complain to whatever superiors he has, whatever regulatory board for doctors there is, that this guy is clearly incompetent and not suited for his job.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You come here solely to disrupt legitimate conversation because they don't support your world view. "

The dude has every right to believe "piracy" is immoral just as he has every right to believe boxer brief, green umbrellas or the idea of a round earth are immoral, but calling any of these a world view is far off. They're only superstitions, and they depend on a lack of a world view.

The most legitimate response to any of these is "I disagree" and then silence. "You're wrong" is accurate, but he has a right to believe something that's incorrect.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hilarious. When I made this exact point to you in the past, you mocked me mercilessly during one of your tirades.

Link. I don't think that's accurate. I'm glad you don't deny that my grasp of IP law is greater than yours. 'Cause to pretend otherwise would be hilarious. You're a total noob.

Wait, figuring out what the *best result is* and then trying to make sure policy creates that result is "working backwards"? Really? No, figuring out what "promotes the progress" is not working backwards. It's doing what we're supposed to be doing.

No, Mike. Your approach to analyzing legal problems is to start with the conclusion and then to try and force the law to get to that answer, whether that means applying the law or not. I don't care what kind of economic answer you want to give. I'm talking about when you misinterpret and misapply the law. For example, you through out "due process!" and "prior restraint!" yet you don't understand those complicated doctrines. You do it with tons of other doctrines too. Your legal analysis boils down to what you think the answer should be, not what the law, faithfully applied, results in.

Shall I break out the list of times you've told me to "fuck off and die" or called me "pirate mike" or told me that I was a "dishonest piece of shit" or any other such insult just because I didn't answer a question you asked in the precise manner you wanted me to answer it?

Sure. I'm sure you were misrepresenting things and I was trying to get you to address something but you refused. I'm sure you were working backwards and jumping to conclusions. Let's take a look. I'd love to. I know you won't, but the sentiment is nice.

AJ, you do not recognize multiple points of view at all. You never have. You come here solely to disrupt legitimate conversation because they don't support your world view. That's the definition of a troll.

I love multiple points of view. You're the one with the mind that's welded shut. You are the most arrogant and derisive person I know.

I don't bug you where you work. Why do you act so dishonest where I work?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Tough to link when you like to log out and post anonymously, but both you and I know you've done that a bunch.

No, Mike. Your approach to analyzing legal problems is to start with the conclusion then to try and force the law to get to that answer, whether that means applying the law or not.

No, it's not. And if you believe that, you're full of shit. Do I see the world through a specific set of experiences and knowledge? Yes. As do you. But none of that means starting with a conclusion. I analyze each situation individually, and at times that means I go against what others who usually side with me come to (for instance, I thought tenenbaum and jammie thomas should have settled).

But I will say that I analyze the law by what I think is the best result overall, not "this is the law, must obey the law" that you seem to favor.

Sure. I'm sure you were misrepresenting things and I was trying to get you to address something but you refused.

Hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahha. So it's okay for you to get "uppity and insulting" when you disagree with me, but if I make even the slightest statement mocking you... it's justified because you were trying to get me to address something?

How about the time you wrote that I was going to get cancer and die because I was so dishonest?

How about the time you told me to fuck off and die?

Yeah, that's "justified"?

I love multiple points of view. You're the one with the mind that's welded shut. You are the most arrogant and derisive person I know.

No. My mind is wide open, like my comments. It's why I allow comments, because it gives people a chance to convince me that I'm wrong. Unfortunately, it also exposes me to idiocy of amazing and never-seen-before levels. Which one do you think you qualify for?

For your interest, my views on copyright, patents and the like have shifted a great deal over the years, in large parts due to discussions held in these comments. Think for a second: have you helped with that, or have you just acted like a child?

I post under my own name. You post under multiple assumed names as well as anonymously. You're not an "open book."

And, nice ad hominem. In this VERY POST you said no reason to insult just because I disagree with you, but you're double standard bullshit knows no bounds, and you insult at will whenever we expose your empty logic-free claims.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you're coming here, to a site that talks about economics, finance and business models...and then admitting you know jack shit about any of the above? And then wondering why we can't stand you?
Try...I dunno, walking into a "Insert Religion here" place of worship and debating the finer points of their religion...only for them to ask you what exactly you know about their religion, upon which you reply you don't know anything.
That's what you're doing. You're failing at an attempt to debate, when you deliberately come in unprepared. From now on, average_joe, whenever I see you here in the comments, I'm going to remind you of this. I'm going to reply back to you that you have admitted you have no place here, that you don't know what you're talking about, and thus, not worth our time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What say you to all those companies, big and small, whose livelihood depends upon the creation and sale of such software? Some specific ideas, please.

In my experience the vast majority of software that is created is for "in house" use. It is either created by the user or commissioned from a 3rd party. It does not make contact with intellectual property laws at all - except perhaps if a company is sold or merged. As an academic who supervises students on industrial placements I can say this with considerable confidence.

The s/w that is published under copyright protection is a tiny tiny fraction of the whole. Much of that has its origins is s/w that was originally written for in house use.

The solution for s/w houses is (as always) to supply the scarcities. In this case they are principally customisation and support. Of course it helps to have a catalog of pre-written s/w that can act as a baseline. You might think that it helps if you keep your baseline protected by copyright - but in reality you can make plenty of money without that.

I used to work for a company that made its money writing s/w for large government (inc military) and commercial projects. Just about everything we wrote had its copyright signed over to the customer. (Of course we always kept the rights to our base versions - which could then be re-used elsewhere. In spite of the fact that the customer had the right and the documentation to maintain the s/w themselves we still made most of our profit on support and maintenance. The key the value of a company is in the in house knowledge held by the staff - not in the theoretical value of copyrights.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, but people are allowed to question if the laws against murder, rape, pillage, piracy (high seas), piracy (high intronnetz), and jaywalking make sense. So just because "it's a law" doesn't mean "it is certifiably morally right no matter what." Is jaywalking as morally repugnant to you as murder? They are both in violation of laws. What about prohibition? Was the consumption of alcohol morally wrong for the years in effect, and thereafter only morally wrong if you were under 18, and thereafter only morally wrong if you were under 21?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yep. Without copyright laws, people could copy as they please. But there is in fact copyright, and people cannot copy as they please. Without laws against murder, people could murder as they please. But there is in fact laws against murder, and people cannot murder as they please.

I hear this argument all the time and it makes no sense. There was a time before laws against murder and people DID NOT "murder as they please." Why? Because people inherently realize that murder is a serious issue, and there are clear social and physical reasons why murder doesn't happen even in the absence of laws against it.

But copyright doesn't seem to fall into that same realm. It is an entirely made up concept. In fact, in a time before copyright, the very idea that it's "wrong" to copy the content of someone else seems ludicrous, because *that was how culture worked*. People shared culture all the time. The only reason we *have* the stories of the ancient Greeks was because those stories were passed on from generation to generation via storytelling and sharing.

So to compare copyright to murder is simply clueless. One has nothing to do with the other. Most people do not murder because there is a law against murder. They do not murder for millions of other reasons.

And, really, that is the sole point that Leigh was trying to make, and which seems unfathomable to you: there are lots of reasons that people do things that have little to do with "it's the law!" And arguing from a position of "it's the law!" without being willing to actually comprehend what we're actually talking about just makes you look silly.

There are important conversations going on here, and you're diluting them (at this point I have to assume on purpose) because you refuse to understand that there is something different between "the law" and "why people do what they do." Get over that and you'll actually take a big leap forward into understanding this world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I hear this argument all the time and it makes no sense. There was a time before laws against murder and people DID NOT "murder as they please." Why? Because people inherently realize that murder is a serious issue, and there are clear social and physical reasons why murder doesn't happen even in the absence of laws against it."

I suggest you go back and look at the old wild west for a while. Without suitable punishment for criminals, people getting killed was a pretty regular occurrence.

For that matter, most criminal groups who do not respect the law consider murder to be the perfect way to resolve their differences.

"So to compare copyright to murder is simply clueless."

So to ignore reality is simply clueless (nice insult there Mike). We have seen already what has happened where there is a lack of law and order, or when people choose to ignore crime. Murder is just another tool for those who don't respect anyone else, and don't respect the law.

"There are important conversations going on here, and you're diluting them (at this point I have to assume on purpose) because you refuse to understand that there is something different between "the law" and "why people do what they do." Get over that and you'll actually take a big leap forward into understanding this world."

Another nasty insult! 3 for 3!

Actually, I think he gets it more than you might think. What people will do, absent the law, and what people do with a enforced law are two different things. It is important to understand that laws are often put in place that people would choose to ignore if they could (speeding and jaywalking are two very good examples), but almost everyone would understand why those laws exist.

Any discussion about piracy pretty much has to face up to the basic fact that it is against the law pretty much everywhere, pretty much all the time.

Get over that and you'll actually take a big leap forward into understanding the REAL world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I suggest you go back and look at the old wild west for a while. Without suitable punishment for criminals, people getting killed was a pretty regular occurrence."

Actually, this is provably false and just a by product of artistic endeavors. Namely, Hollywood created movies showing the Wild West as this "do what you want" type place with lawlessness running rampant and people being gunned down on a regular basis.

Things couldn't be further from the truth. The Wild West happened almost immediately after the Civil War. So basically, what you had were people wanting a new life out west who had up until very recently been soldiers in what was largely the single biggest war in America at the time. What does this mean? That they knew how to look after themselves and they weren't going to take shit from anyone.

Go do a bit of research. I won't bother to do it for you since you'll ignore it anyway because it's inconvenient to your argument. But basically, getting killed (at least by someone else) was NOT a pretty regular occurrence. (Also like how you phrased that. "Getting killed was a pretty regular occurrence." Oh hey, it is today too! What with disease, accidents, etc. being around today too. All of which do kill people. What you meant to say was "being murdered", but again, that is still incorrect regardless of what you believe.)

And, conflating murder and copyright is clueless and just grasping at straws. Also, someone pointing out that you're diluting conversations is in no way a "nasty insult". Really, get over yourself.

And regardless of what you believe, laws or not, people will not run as wild as you think they will. People are inherently good and decent. There's always going to be some who aren't, but they aren't as big a problem as some (like yourself) would make them out to be.

Oh, and fyi, "speeding" is an artificially created thing. Most studies done show that most speed "limits" are actually set too low to create revenue streams for those putting them in place, and that the human "clock" (I guess you could call it) actually runs a bit faster than "normal/set" speed limits. But, more importantly, to maximize safety on the road, one would have to actually INCREASE all current speed limits. With 85-90 mph being pointed out as the optimum speed, which has been proven with testing and shows that there are less accidents and deaths caused by accidents at said speeds. Of course the revenues generated by tickets at those speeds do go down, which of course isn't in the best interest of the "public". (And by public we mean state/federal agencies who receive said revenues from tickets.)

But finally, you're entire argument falls back to "but but but it's against the law", which means you have nothing more to add to it in a meaningful way. "It's the law" has been applied to a lot of things that weren't inherently right, nor made them right in the eyes of many. I'd list them, but they're pretty common knowledge by now.

The long and short of it is that the majority of people have no problem with and see no problem in copying digital items. None whatsoever. It goes back to sharing, which is something most of us are taught at an early age to do because it is good. If you can have something without depriving someone else, then that's not a bad thing. Simple as that.

And no amount of finger wagging or "but it's the law" is going to make people think otherwise. And attempts to curtail their rights (invade their privacy, monitor what they do online, stifle free speech with broad censorship, etc) is not going to endear them to you or your point of view. If anything it'll make them go out of their way to give you the finger and tell you where you can stick your copyright. (Hint, it's not where the sun shines.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Go do a bit of research"

You missed the point. The point is that you had tons of people with lots of weapons and no fear to use them, because they did not fear the law. So people were killed pretty much on a regular basis, with plenty of vigilante justice and killings over very small things.

"Oh, and fyi, "speeding" is an artificially created thing. Most studies done show that most speed "limits" are actually set too low to create revenue streams for those putting them in place, and that the human "clock" (I guess you could call it) actually runs a bit faster than "normal/set" speed limits"

Yes, you are correct. However, it doesn't negate the fact that those laws exist, and are enforced, and are generally good for the people (because it keeps speed differential between the cars down, making it safer).

The point is that speeding laws are unpopular, but they are a "greater good" thing.

"And no amount of finger wagging or "but it's the law" is going to make people think otherwise. "

It's not the finger wagging that will change anything. It's a mentality thing, where (like speeding laws) people understand that the laws exist for a reason, and even if they don't like them and often skirt them, there is an understanding of why they exist. Most people "know" that a 65MPH limit means you can do 70MPH without a ticket, so most people do that.

The issue of piracy is that there is enough people like Mike and Marcus here going on about how Piracy does not harm, and causes no issues. Combined with wide and easy access, people have started to think they can do 90MPH in that 65 zone without any problems. But reality is that when the sheriff is there, you will get a ticket. Changing the mentality on piracy is likely to be like changing the mentality on smoking. Slow progress, but it's happening.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You missed the point. The point is that you had tons of people with lots of weapons and no fear to use them, because they did not fear the law. So people were killed pretty much on a regular basis, with plenty of vigilante justice and killings over very small things.

Did you really just quote 6 words and ignore the ENTIRE part about how what you just said - again - was wrong? Jesus Christ.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You missed the point. The point is that you had tons of people with lots of weapons and no fear to use them, because they did not fear the law. So people were killed pretty much on a regular basis, with plenty of vigilante justice and killings over very small things."

No, you made a point which was wrong. And again, you missed a point I left out because I wanted to spare you. Again, you are still trying to say something was going on/happening when it actually wasn't.

So let me clarify. People knew how to take care of themselves. People also had a strict code of honor at the time. There were no killings/vigilante justice/feuds over small slights happening on a regular basis. DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL THE WAY YOU CLAIM IT DID. This is a verifiable fact. Hollywood movies notwithstanding.

"Yes, you are correct. However, it doesn't negate the fact that those laws exist, and are enforced, and are generally good for the people (because it keeps speed differential between the cars down, making it safer)."

I didn't say those laws don't exist, nor that they aren't enforced. I merely pointed out that speeding laws are NOT in the public interest, nor do they actually make anyone safer. Not at the limits they're currently set. And no, keeping the speed differential down DOES NOT make things safer for people. There are reports you can view on the matter, basically they all disprove you. You have access to the internet apparently. Do something worthwhile besides trying to win an argument you already lost. Look up the facts. And quit trying to change things to make it seem like you weren't wrong or that others misinterpreted what you said. Your comment as was originally stated is viewable to all, you're wrong. No harm in that. Just teaches you a lesson, to research before you state something that's untrue because you will get called out on it.

"The point is that speeding laws are unpopular, but they are a "greater good" thing."

They are unpopular, and they are NOT a "greater good". Period. They do nothing for the greater good, and in point of fact, as I already stated, current speeding laws actually cause more harm than good, and are in fact leading to less safety on the roadways. An increase in speed limits would be much safer (again, research conducted into this has proven it) for people. It would however lead to a reduction in traffic tickets being issued, and thus revenues generated for various agencies. Not too mention the fact that it would affect insurance companies, due to them not being able to raise rates on drivers with speeding tickets. So because of this revenue decrease for certain state/federal agencies and the insurance companies, speed limits are kept low to basically fuck the people over, both monetarily and safety-wise.

As for your piracy bit. Nonsense. Pure and simple. Mike and Marcus have yet to say piracy causes no harm. What they have said, and what your side has yet to prove, is that it causes any verifiable harm. All the studies show pirates are actually better customers and spend more than non-pirates. Studies also show that "piracy losses" are nowhere near as large as they're made out to be. Studies have shown that increased methods for legal access/consumption of digital goods leads to rapid and notable decreases in piracy rates. Studies have also shown that harsher and stricter laws for enforcing copyright protection/diminishing piracy have no effect whatsoever.

Studies prove you and yours wrong. On a regular basis.

To sum up, you're beyond wrong and the facts are most definitely not on your side.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But copyright doesn't seem to fall into that same realm. It is an entirely made up concept. In fact, in a time before copyright, the very idea that it's "wrong" to copy the content of someone else seems ludicrous, because *that was how culture worked*. People shared culture all the time. The only reason we *have* the stories of the ancient Greeks was because those stories were passed on from generation to generation via storytelling and sharing.

And yet practically every single country on earth has laws against copying. If it was so inherently evil to grant copyrights, why would all these countries do so? Because there's more to it that your oversimplified view of things. Culture has always and will always exist. Copyright adds to that culture as it incentivizes new works. I know you personally see copyright as antithetical to culture, but that is an extremist, minority view. The majority view on this planet is that not only do the two coexist, but they do so harmoniously. You tend to look at little slivers and claim that the system is broken. You need to look at the bigger picture, which includes society over a large number of years. But you never do that. I've seen you make arguments like "a teacher couldn't copy a textbook and give copies to all the students, therefore copyright is not serving its purpose to promote the progree." That argument is so narrow and so wrong, it hurts. Look at the bigger picture, which includes questioning things like whether that textbook would even exist in the first place if no one paid for it.

So to compare copyright to murder is simply clueless. One has nothing to do with the other. Most people do not murder because there is a law against murder. They do not murder for millions of other reasons.

The comparison was that if there weren't laws against murder, then people could murder as they please. And if there weren't laws against copying, then people could copy as they please. You can replace the word "murder" with pretty much anything that has a law against it. But to say that the laws against murder are somehow more real or important than the laws against copying doesn't hold up. It's because so many nations recognize the wisdom of granting authors exclusive rights that so many countries in fact do so. It's no more made up than any other right. And history has shown that without laws against murder, people would do it frighteningly more often.

And, really, that is the sole point that Leigh was trying to make, and which seems unfathomable to you: there are lots of reasons that people do things that have little to do with "it's the law!" And arguing from a position of "it's the law!" without being willing to actually comprehend what we're actually talking about just makes you look silly.

I'm pointing out that you can't just ignore all the unpleasant parts and pretend like Techdirt is only about helping artists survive in the Golden Age of Piracy. You and Techdirt do way more than that. You've obviously picked sides, and it's obviously with the pirates. You try and sweep all the moral stuff under the rug, and you downplay all the negative aspects of piracy. You demand that everyone only focus on the narrow issues you think are important. I'm merely pointing out the truth, the truth that you don't want anyone to think about, that there's bigger, broader things at play.

There are important conversations going on here, and you're diluting them (at this point I have to assume on purpose) because you refuse to understand that there is something different between "the law" and "why people do what they do." Get over that and you'll actually take a big leap forward into understanding this world.

I'm trying to get you to talk about the important things. But every time I bring up something important and uncomfortable, like say what you personally think about copyright, you run away from the debate and stomp your feet and give all sorts of reasons why you won't even talk about that stuff. Usually your excuse is that I'm too dumb to understand or I'm too mean, or something like that. And yet here you are directing a post to me. The fact is, you don't mind chatting with me, but you just don't want to chat about the hard stuff. Stop running away and actually talk this thing out. Stop pretending like unless I limit myself to your preapproved topics then that means I don't understand the world. I understand lots. I spend hours each day pouring over nuance. You'd be surprised at what I understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And yet practically every single country on earth has laws against copying. If it was so inherently evil to grant copyrights, why would all these countries do so?

Because these countries all copied each other - and copying is such an innate human instinct!

Actually in immediate response to the invention of the printing press almost every country in the world put in place a system of government censorship.

Copyright is the bastard child of those systems - go read the history properly. (Hint you need to look at what happened before the US existed - the US simply copied existing British law).

In summary it was convenient for the government to privatise the majority of the censorship function and thus an interest group (the publishers) was created. That interest group has lobbied for more and stricter copyright law for over 300 years - what we see worldwide is just the outcome of that process.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

know you personally see copyright as antithetical to culture, but that is an extremist, minority view.

Amongst those who chatter in the MSM that may be true - however I have observed that whenever these issues come up in a popular public forum (and I'm talking Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, BBC here) the weight of the "recommended" comments always seems to veer towards this allegedly "extremist" position.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only reason we *have* the stories of the ancient Greeks was because those stories were passed on from generation to generation via storytelling and sharing.

And COPYING. The extant works of the great Greek playwrights and poets appear in the main to constitute a mere fraction of their total output. Hundreds upon hundreds of works were lost forever in the burning of the library of Alexandria, and only because those works had not been copied and circulated sufficiently to survive elsewhere.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Personally, I would take this a step further back and point out that copyright is a suspension of everyone else's right to do as they please with elements of culture, that there is no inherent exclusive natural right to exclude others from copying your book or song or whatever. It is, instead, an artificial marketplace convenience founded on suspending everyone else's natural rights.

If you want to get moral about it, copyright is a slight immorality that we all tolerate so long as copyright results in a net benefit to society.

Yep, copyright limits what everyone else can do with someone's property. All property rights do this. Would it be better for society if we took away all your property and gave it to the poor? Of course. Then why don't you advocate that?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Yep, copyright limits what everyone else can do with someone's property."

Uh... no, not really. There's something call human imagination and we can use that to make changes to whatever property there is. There are such things where other people have taken other stuff and subvert, avert, invert, downplay, enforce, defy, discuss, converse, deconstruct, reconstruct, invoke, imply, exaggerate, parody, enforce, and plays it for drama or for laughs. You can take a trope and twist it multiple ends until you beat it dead, and you can apply that to just about everything on this planet, and maybe beyond.

Copyright shouldn't stop human innovation. If someone wants to improve on something, then let them. With copyright in place, you're saying that we can't take a property and make our own changes to it to make it better for other people to enjoy? Personally I would like to have not only a say in what I want in a new device, but also have a crack at maybe designing something that might appeal to others. If copyright is preventing us from innovating, then why do we have it?

And that "it's the law" BS you're going to say, if you reply to this... yeah, not going to faze me. Try and it's not going to work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Copyright shouldn't stop human innovation.

And it doesn't. It locks up a particular expression, but not the ideas expressed. And really the sort of uses you're referring to aren't the ones that are the problem. The uses I worry about are wholesale infringement. It's not stopping innovation from preventing people from downloading the latest game, movie, or music. That stuff is for sale, not for free, and just taking it hurts the right holder.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

OK, so taking something hurts a person. Here's my question:

HOW?

Now maybe I wasn't as clear with my analogy above, but what I was trying to get at, as some others have said, copyright does prevent those who do create from creating the same thing and making improvements on it. Sure, that does hinder a person from creating, but when I think harm, there's physical, mental, psychological, emotional... do you see where I'm going? Where is the harm that the person is inflicting when they are taking something from a creator? I know physical harm is impossible if someone is stealing or pirating online, but internal harm like mental and psychological? Well maybe. It'll still be hard to prove if you don't have anything to back you up if someone did do some harm from making a copy of a song without you knowing it.

Seriously, I... no, a lot of us wants to know what harm does copying does to a person. Is it like getting a stab wound in the chest and leaving behind a large scar that will stay there forever, or is it like getting a small papercut that could heal in a few days? Is it like seeing the sight of a gruesome image too disturbing to speak out loud, that permanently burns into your mind and haunts you at night, or is it like forgetting something so small that it'll be over with in a day?

Re: Re:

Economically speaking, it doesn't matter if it's moral or amoral. Morally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Legally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Realistically speaking, it doesn't matter if it's moral, legal, or right. You see how nothing actually relates in this situation? The fact that you won't acknowledge the fact that reality does not line up with the law any more speaks volumes about you.

If I violate your rights, does it matter to you? The reality is that people are consciously choosing to violate other people's rights, and only an apologist would pretending like it doesn't matter. If it would matter to you that your rights are violated, then it should matter to you when it happens to someone else.

Here's where you may be getting confused. Copyright isn't actually a right, it's a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public. So when you start talking morality, you're already off track when talking about copyright. If you want to talk morality, then it's moral to ignore copyright because copyright itself has become amoral (wasn't when it was created, now it is).

Copyright grants its holder certain rights. Either somebody has a right or they don't. The distinction between right and privilege is passe. You may not personally agree with copyright, but too bad for you. You don't get to decide which rights matter and which rights don't. I don't get to decide which of your rights are worth respecting and you don't get to do the same with other people's rights. It doesn't matter how terrible I think your right is to not be murdered, nothing gives me the right to murder you.

As for trolls, while you may bring an argument or two to the table, the people you chose to defend demonize and dehumanize themselves. They chose to come here, insult everyone indiscriminately, ignore any logic, and then leave without providing responses, logic, or evidence of their own. We don't do that to them, we just follow the path they laid out for themselves.

Nonsense. There are many on Techdirt who are very abusive, yet they aren't called trolls so long as they are toeing the line. It's only when somebody has a dissenting view do you guys feel the need to label them pejoratively.

Re: Re: Re:

Again, people will pirate regardless of whether or not "Pirate Mike" starts every story with the words "Copyright infringement is a naughty naughty no-no" or not. From everything I've seen this site operates on the logic of, "Piracy exists. Now what?" Not "Piracy exists, but is it right or not, not that our decision on rightness or wrongness will affect anything at all ever."

Re: Re: Re:

FWIW, there has always been an ongoing debate concerning "right" versus "grant/privilege", with noted history and law scholars lining up on opposite sides. I happen to believe it is a right that devolves from one's labors, albeit mental versus physical.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I happen to believe it is a right that devolves from one's labors, albeit mental versus physical./i>

Seems to me the framers of the US constitution disagree with you, else why would they have written that this 'right' needs to be secured, and why would they have written that it should endure only for a limited time?

Re: Re:

Here's where you may be getting confused. Copyright isn't actually a right, it's a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public.

That is simply untrue. It is a human right. Ffrom below:

"Most recently, the 1996 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognized the human right of all people to the protection of the moral and material interests derived from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author This right is derived from the inherent dignity and worth of all members of the human family.

The human rights of artists and creators are also recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the 1988 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the 1952 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms In all these instances, a multitude of nations joined together to recognize the international and fundamental human rights that artists and performers have regarding their creative works. "

Re:

Wrong, as in an absolute sense of the word, wrong? As in, wrong for every possible circumstance and any possible reason, wrong?

Or maybe...you're just a fool who refuses to see the opportunities staring him in the face. The fact that there can be good coming out of copyright infringement.
What exactly is it about copyright that you love so much? I equate what you do to a fundamentalist zealot of "Insert Religion Here". Like them, you embrace it, adore it, and absolutely refuse to tolerate any talk that suggests it in itself may be wrong.

Re:

It definitely should matter when rights are violated. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. In our society, "justice" goes to those who can buy it, unless there's a fundamental paradigm and practical reality in the way. The big publishing/media companies have had their way perverting laws and buying legislation to subvert our democratic processes so now they have the Mickey Mouse Protection Act and the DMCA, amongst others. This isn't right. It's a direct violation of the rights of the public, in whose interest the copyright clause was written, and also a violation of the right to have representation in your government. But these rights violations are "legal" because the publishers paid for the laws and influenced the corruptible politicians who voted for them. But since we all (hopefully) know that legality does not equal morality, the law can't be seen as an infallible guide to what is right and wrong. When copyright law becomes reasonable enough for the common citizen to respect it, then enforcing it will likewise become a more reasonable proposition. Otherwise, it's just an argument from the wealthy corporations saying "Hey, you can't steal from me! I stole it first fair and square!"

But worse than just copyrighted works not going into the public domain when they should, the laws pushed by these corporations have had adverse affects on people who don't care either way about copyright duration. These laws have been used to silence free speech, which is a basic constitutional right and a natural right of human beings, which trumps the "rights" of government granted monopolies on expression. The participation of these corporations in the lobbying system perpetuates a corrupt government that no longer represents the general populace. When these corporations take their money out of Washington and start supporting legislation to bring the government back under the control of the people rather than the wealthy and the powerful special interests, I'll be more amenable to their cries of rights violations.

Re: Re:

So you're of the school that you get to decide which rights matter and which ones don't. Can I just decide to violate your rights then? I understand that you don't agree with the law, but I don't understand how you get from there to the point where you're OK with violating it. We're talking about property rights. These people make valuable property at their own expense and then try to sell it on the market. To pretend like that violates your rights is silly. To pretend like the notion is so terrible that people are justified to violate those people's rights is silly. And to pretend like copyright doesn't create great works that we all love is just silly. You guys all hate copyright so much, but then your willing to break the law to get the copyrighted stuff. Don't you see the disconnect?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So tell me...if I copy say the Lord of the Rings (the books, not the movies), who exactly is being harmed? Can't be J R R Tolkien, since he's been dead since the 1970's.
Yet somehow, his "right" is still being protected, still being enforced.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And again, if I copy Lord of the Rings, who is being harmed? I don't care about the present-day owner of the copyrights, they are not the author and deserve literally no consideration. The purpose of copyright is to promote new works. What's the point of enforcing copyright if the author is dead?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think the point is that dead people not only can't create, but they have this iorritating habit of being in the ground. Wo, please remind me why we should obey a law that is not rational, not a net positive for society and is completely at odds with pretty much everything we teach children from a young age.

Re: Re: Re:

Good copyright law also serves new works by knowing when to get out of the way of new works. Disney movies that use public domain stories as a base come to mind as well as the many works based on greek mythology, the bible ect.

Re: Re: Re:

"So you're of the school that you get to decide which rights matter and which ones don't."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I choose to believe that basic human rights trump first world privileges like monopolies on infinitely reproducible expressions. It's a matter of priorities.

"We're talking about property rights."

No, we're talking about copyrights, which aren't actually rights, but rather government-granted monopolies created for the purposes of incentivizing the creation of works "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The artist (or the corporation they sell their copyrights to) holding copyrights and being able to temporarily profit from their artificial exclusivity is just the mechanism by which artists are supposed to be incentivized. It's a necessary evil for the purpose of the greater good.

"And to pretend like copyright doesn't create great works that we all love is just silly."

Copyright doesn't create shit. Artists create works. Being artistic or creative doesn't depend on the existence of copyright (ask DaVinci and Shakespeare and the cavemen who painted in what would become Lascaux, France). Art is a form of expression, of communication. People with something to express don't remain silent just because nobody is paying them to speak. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be paid for their work, mind you. I'm saying art will still exist regardless of whether copyright exists, so you can't pretend like copyright is the sole reason why the great works that we all love exist.

If you want to credit copyright for the creation of great works, then you have to blame it for the creation of terrible works also. So per Sturgeon's revelation that, "90 percent of everything is crap," copyright is to blame for the Spice Girls, Battlefield Earth, and American Idol. There are three very good reasons to execute copyright for supposedly causes such atrocities.

Re: Re: Re:

"And to pretend like copyright doesn't create great works that we all love is just silly. You guys all hate copyright so much, but then your willing to break the law to get the copyrighted stuff."

Ugh, this sort of crap does your argument no favours. Copyright does not create content, good or bad. People create content. Copyright has absolutely no bearing on quality whatsoever, and any genuine artist would be insulted by the suggestion.

Re: Re: Re:

So you approve of slavery? You approve of beating your wife? And you approve of rape in the course of war?

These were all actual laws at one point or another in time. And I haven't purchased or intentionally listened to any label music in the p[ast two years that can be legally purchased for monies over here. I've gone completely free where possible. Therefore, I have no disconnect and you are objectively wrong.

Re: Re:

Re:

"Can I willfully violate your rights?"

As a consumer, I've constantly had my rights willfully violated by the content industry for quite some time. Were you this passionate when they said it's illegal to take a legally purchased DVD and make a legal digital copy to legally placeshift? Were you this passionate when they said it's illegal to lend a legally purchased ebook to my friend? Were you this passionate when they said it's ok to take away the OtherOS feature from my legally purchased PlayStation long after I had already paid for it?

I am *not* trying to convey a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' message here. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to promote creator's rights while the industry is willfully violating consumer's rights. Both sides are doing 'wrong' to the other so it's rather difficult to objectively pick a side here.

There are some wrongs that are more harmful than others. It's wrong to take a mint without dropping a nickel in the charity box and it's also wrong to take the entire charity box including all the mints and donated cash. I think this is where the disconnect between consumers and creators is. Consumers honestly believe pirates are just taking a mint and creators honestly believe pirates are taking the charity box.

Re: Re:

As a consumer, I've constantly had my rights willfully violated by the content industry for quite some time. Were you this passionate when they said it's illegal to take a legally purchased DVD and make a legal digital copy to legally placeshift? Were you this passionate when they said it's illegal to lend a legally purchased ebook to my friend? Were you this passionate when they said it's ok to take away the OtherOS feature from my legally purchased PlayStation long after I had already paid for it?

That makes no sense. Your rights aren't violated by any of those things. Piracy, on the other hand, actually does violate someone's rights.

I am *not* trying to convey a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' message here. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to promote creator's rights while the industry is willfully violating consumer's rights. Both sides are doing 'wrong' to the other so it's rather difficult to objectively pick a side here.

They're not willfully violating consumer's rights. You're making that up.

Re: Re: Re:

In 2005, Sony BMG published CDs with copy protection and digital rights management software called Extended Copy Protection, created by software company First 4 Internet. The software included a music player but silently installed a rootkit which limited the user's ability to access the CD.[10]

Software engineer Mark Russinovich, who created the rootkit detection tool RootkitRevealer, discovered the rootkit on one of his computers.[1] The ensuing scandal raised the public's awareness of rootkits.[11]

To cloak itself, the rootkit hid from the user any file starting with "$sys$". Soon after Russinovich's report, malware appeared which took advantage of that vulnerability of affected systems.[1]

One BBC analyst called it a "public relations nightmare."[12] Sony BMG released patches to uninstall the rootkit, but it exposed users to an even more serious vulnerability.[13] The company eventually recalled the CDs. In the United States, a class-action lawsuit was brought against Sony BMG.[14]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Is justifiees piracy because the assumption is that you're only going to buy blank media for the sole purpose of infringing copyright. It then follows that you're paying to be able to pirate in Canada.

This is why "blank media" taxes that do not go directly to the Government and stay there are both morally reprehensible and encourage criminality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps not, but it's certainly very telling when the industry decides it can overstep laws and whatnot while telling everyone else they can't. It might not justify piracy but it rightfully makes everyone disdainful of anything the industry tries to pull.

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, his rights to make legal backups ARE being violated, when DRM gets in the way.
Strange how in your constant chest thumping of "Rights are being violated!" you never realise that fact. You sir are a hypocrite.

Re: Re:

And you fall into the trap of thinking that piracy or sharing content on-line is anything like taking a physical product, again, when you are sharing on the internet you are not removing the original , it still exists, you are making a copy and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't try to sell it or make money from sharing it. Copyright should really just cover those people that are making money from others creations not those that are making a copy for themselves, this has been what copyright was all about since it's inception, but it has been twisted and changed to such an extent that it just does not make sense any more, how can I be doing anything wrong by having my son of 4 years old sing a song and put it on youtube for his gran to watch. there is nothing wrong with that but I am sure it will be taken down.
This is why the majority of the public actually ignore the copyright laws, they are taking away fundamental rights we have. So the best thing is to ignore it , and hopefully it will not be long before it goes away, or is changed to reflect the times we are living in.

Re:

It's your point of view that it's wrong. And you know what you said about differing points of view. You could have said, "But it does matter IF it's wrong", rather than, "But it does matter THAT it's wrong". Okay, so you believe it's wrong. That's your point of view, your opinion, not an established fact.

Re: Re: Re:

It is not that no one here is willing to answer your simple question - as Leigh Beadon's initial comment, in his first sentence mentions this:

Personally I believe that, while violating the rights of creators is wrong in a very real sense, it is at least equally wrong (in a broader and, in the long run, more significant sense) to hold back the proliferation of culture and interfere with the (in my opinion) absolutely incredible potential of technology that can make all human knowledge and culture available to everyone, everywhere, all the time.

...but that you are asking a question about oranges when what is being discussed are apples. You are choosing to not see the point in the on-going discussion because you are harping on rights when it has been clearly and simply explained to you that we are not discussing rights, but the betterment of all people through the constant and free access to content.

My position ultimately doesn't matter here, as the discussion isn't even about personal views, you have turned yourself into someone who is beating a drum "What about the victim, what about his rights!?" now that is important, but not to this discussion. The only reason you yourself haven't been called a troll is that you are able to in full sentences with depth of vocabulary eloquently express your view.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"...but that you are asking a question about oranges when what is being discussed are apples. You are choosing to not see the point in the on-going discussion because you are harping on rights when it has been clearly and simply explained to you that we are not discussing rights, but the betterment of all people through the constant and free access to content."

You are falling for the standard Techdirt lines here. Marcus (aka Leigh) is just repeating the stuff Mike has hammered into his head. Repeating a lie sometimes makes people think it's the truth, and apparently you are starting to accept it.

They are attempting to present you something as two choices: Wide access or copyright. They paint it as if you cannot have both. Yet, for as long as I have been on this planet (long than Marcus or Mike) I have almost always been able to have access to all the culture around me.

I could watch free TV. I could listen to free radio. I could borrow books from the library. I could go to the movies if I wanted to pay for it, or I could rent a movie (later after the VCR came around), or I could wait for the best movies to run on free TV after a point. I could read the local newspaper for a few cents a day, and so on.

There was plenty of access to culture. Some of it free now, some of it free later. I didn't want for information, news, or entertainment.

Put simply, I didn't have to make a choice between entertainment and copyright, because both existed and it was still fine. There was entertainment, and there is free entertainment today.

If you want to discuss the betterment of all people, you have to remember that there are two sides to the story, action / reaction.

Let's look at something simple: In your town / city / area there are probably some homeless people. There are also some apartments for rent. Ignoring the commercial aspects (not in discussion here!), and ignoring the implication on property rights (not in discussion here!) would it not be for the betterment of all people if each of us had somewhere to live, regardless of social or economic standing?

See, when you remove the moral aspects, when you remove the rights aspect, and look solely and narrowly at the "betterment of man", you would toss the key to the apartment to the first homeless guy you saw. It would improve his life, get him off the street, and thus improve your life and your living standard too.

You cannot discuss the implications to the landlord, because that isn't about betterment of man. If the apartment was empty, he wasn't making money, so he suffers no loss, right?

Well, yes, he does suffer loss. But that loss is esoteric, because it's in "loss of potential revenue" and loss of control over his property. But since those things are only based really on moral laws, they aren't important, are they?

"The only reason you yourself haven't been called a troll is that you are able to in full sentences with depth of vocabulary eloquently express your view."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, but your analogy fails in one important aspect: When the apartment is in use, there is wear and tear that occur. Also, the landlord is unable to give use of that apartment to another person. So, while it would be nice to give that apartment to the first person on the street without a house, there are only so many houses to go around. That is "scarcity."

Intangible goods (songs, videos, writings AKA 'culture), on the other hand, experience no wear and tear, and are infinitely reproducible at original quality. CDs, DVDs, books and the like are finite and perishable, but the content is not. Unlike apples, oranges and apartments, these intangible goods can be shared among ALL people who can access them with no loss in quality and no reduction in inventory.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"When the apartment is in use, there is wear and tear that occur. Also, the landlord is unable to give use of that apartment to another person. So, while it would be nice to give that apartment to the first person on the street without a house, there are only so many houses to go around. That is "scarcity.""

You missed the point. Marcus is arguing from the standpoint of betterment of man, not in the broader implications. It's a common debating trick, which is to eliminate or rule out all of the implications, and only focus narrowly on a single part of the discussion. Once you prove that single part of the discussion, you declare it good for humanity, and the rest of the discussion is apparently rendered moot.

Giving everyone a place to stay, a place to live, would certainly be for the betterment of society and the betterment of man. Narrowly taken in that single context, giving them the apartment is right. Your MORAL arguments about the losses the landlord would suffer are meaningless, because they are not part of the discussion. You are looking at the implications, and not paying attention to the betterment of mankind.

See how it works?

The debate of tangible versus intangible rests in the same tactic, ignoring 99% of things and concentrating on a single part of the process. While ones and zeros are infinite, the number of movies or music by a given artist are in fact limited, rare, and valuable in and of themselves. A director might only make a dozen movies in their career. They are RARE, not infinite. Only the very end game (duplication of the finished product) is infinite.

For the betterment of man, we want to encourage artists to make art. We don't want to discourage art and make them work as a wage slave all their lives. Society is better when artists make art, not sweep streets. So we create a construct which allows artists to, for a certain period of time, to have a form of ownership over their work, so they can use it, sell it, transfer it, market it, or otherwise benefit from their own efforts. In doing so, we as a society help to benefit mankind by allowing these artists the luxury to do what they do best (being artists).

Now, back to the original apartment argument. The ownership of the apartment is a moral construct, not natural law. We as a society have chosen to allow for ownership of land, of space (in the case of a condo, example). We grant exclusive rights of control over that space. But if you are willing to ignore the rights of the artist granted under moral construct (copyright) then you should have no issue ignoring the property rights of the landlord.

Ahh, but you can see the problem: if the landlord does not have control of his property and cannot profit from it, he is unlikely to want to build anything else that he cannot control. People would not pay big money to own a home if they could not in fact own it. Constructors would not build homes if they could not sell them to others.

Think about it. Understand that there are two things always in play here, which is that our laws are almost always constructs, not natural law, and that the implictions and the context of actions means there is always a reaction, an implication, or a broader situation to look at.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"We don't want to discourage art and make them work as a wage slave all their lives. Society is better when artists make art, not sweep streets. "

I'm an artist and a wage slave, but I don't go crying to the government for a welfare fund just for me, so I can do something once in my life and then retire on that for the rest of my life (I'm looking at you Harper Lee!)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I'm an artist and a wage slave, but I don't go crying to the government for a welfare fund just for me, so I can do something once in my life and then retire on that for the rest of my life (I'm looking at you Harper Lee!)"

Nobody wants welfare, where the heck do you get that idea? Stop with the extremism already.

If you are a great artist, don't you think it would be better that you didn't have to wage slave all day? Wouldn't the world be better for your art, rather than your Japanese effecient paper pushing and form stamping?

Wouldn't be better to live in a place where, as you produce art, you can work to sell and distribute it in a manner that would let you make enough money to do it all again, free of the wage slave life you currently live?

No welfare, but a way for many people to pay a small amount of money to enjoy your art?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wouldn't be better to live in a place where, as you produce art, you can work to sell and distribute it in a manner that would let you make enough money to do it all again, free of the wage slave life you currently live?

No welfare, but a way for many people to pay a small amount of money to enjoy your art?

Unfortunately your mechanism for "many people to pay a small amount" now requires a police state and/or crippled technology to enforce it.

I don't want either so we have to find another way - sorry about that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thing is, for morals to even be valid they must be respectable values. "ip" has failed this fundamental test.

It fails that test yet practically every nation on earth recognizes it and grants rights for it. You're living in a dream world that doesn't exist. You may not respect IP, but that's clearly not the majority view. And let me guess, you have no problem with deciding for themselves which rights are important and which are not. Am I right? Can I decide which of your rights are important and which ones I want to violate? This stuff isn't hard. If you read Techdirt too much you'll be spoonfed all sorts of apologist propaganda, but at the end of the day it comes down to whether you decide for yourself to violate the law and the violate other people's rights. Sadly, many of Mike's devout followers have no problem with deciding to violate other people's rights. Mike gives you guys all sorts of excuses to hang your hats on. That's his fundamental purpose in life, as far as I can tell.

As for respect, I'm talking about respect among people not geverments. Goverments do not decide morality and you cannot have a moral rule that such a large chuck of people don't hold to and that they cannot be forced to stick to under a resonable scope of enforcement.(as in, enforcement without police states and overbearing regulations)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

See, violating my "rights" isn't a big deal if I'm not actually harmed. "Rights" should only be a hard and fast rule when there is harm involved.

So if I decide that you aren't really harmed, can I violate your rights? And what if the harm is indirect and hard to prove? Does that mean I'm doubly justified to just violate away? Just because you don't see the harm doesn't mean that you get to unilaterally decide that someone else's rights are properly violated. What makes you the arbiter of other people's harms? It doesn't work that way. This is basic Being a Human Being 101 stuff. I know the Gospel according to Masnick doesn't teach this stuff, but even children know it's wrong to violate other people's rights--even if the harm isn't readily apparent. Or even if there's no harm at all. If I trespass across your yard, you can sue me for nominal damages, even if I cause no actual harm. That's how property rights work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thing is "rights" are entirely abitrary.

Children only know "rights" based on what the civilisation around them says. Like countries where "rights" don't even apply to women and thus the children are ok with doing thnigs that to you would be a violation of a woman's rights.

And geuss what, if I tell my children that they have a "human right" to copy they'll see copyright law as a violation of that right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thing is "rights" are entirely abitrary.

Funny thing is, some of the rights that we value the most are arbitrary. I'm thinking of the implied fundamental liberty rights that the Supreme Court has identified in its line of substantive due process cases. These are fundamental rights like the right to marry and the right to privacy. Talk about arbitrary. One word in the Constitution, "liberty," has been interpreted to imply a host of fundamental rights.

But copyright is anything but arbitrary. It's mentioned in the Constitution directly, and then Congress has spelled it out explicitly in the Copyright Act. It's anything but arbitrary.

It is in a way disappointing that so little has been researched about the use of the term "secure" in the enabling Article 8 power entrusted to Congress. Many seem inclined to equate it with "grant", monopoly, privilege, etc.". Maybe they are correct, but then again many notable scholars of history and law have come to diametrically opposite conclusions. References to Wheaton v. Peters and its progeny are interesting, but their analysis presupposes that copyrights are a "grant, etc., etc.", which does not necessarily prove the case. An intellectually honest discussion would attempt to impartially examine the term "secure", for at least one plausible interpretation is that it pertains to an already existing right.

Yes, it gives congress the power to enact such laws, yes. You try to use that to claim that the specific laws are automatically correct. That's a false conclusion, and you know it. You're the one grasping.

Yes, it gives congress the power to enact such laws, yes. You try to use that to claim that the specific laws are automatically correct. That's a false conclusion, and you know it. You're the one grasping.

I'm saying it's correct because it in fact is the law and in fact people have copyright laws and in fact copyright rights are violated when someone pirates. If a pirate violates someone's rights, that is per se wrong. My moral compass is quite simple. I learned this stuff when I was like 4.

So you are proud of having the simplistic, underdeveloped morality of a 4-year-old? That explains a lot.

My point, which went over your head, is that I learned that violating people's personal rights was wrong when I was four. Good job ignoring everything else I stated so you could get your childish dig in.

They aren't the same. They have different words and everything. But the laws usually track what we as society think is moral. How else would it work? And we don't get to decide which rights of others are important and which are not. Instead, as a society we decide in certain rules. And our duty as members of that society is to follow the rules. And no, a pirate's need to get the latest movie for free doesn't rise up to one of those situations where the law is clearly wrong. This isn't racism or slavery.

There are more people who don't pirate than who do. That said, I think people pirate because it's easy, because they see lots of other people doing it, and because so few get caught. Rather than pay money for that great content that they really want, they just take it. And they read blogs like Techdirt where they are told that piracy is really the victims' fault, and they should just take whatever they want whenever they want it. It's a childish view. It's refusing to look past the end of their nose. When they grow up and have money and have some skin in the game, I suspect the point of view grows up too.

Yeah, I get it. You think all rights are equal, all violations of rights are equally wrong, all laws are correct, and laws themselves never violate anyone's rights.

Simplistic. Suit yourself.

You yourself said that "violating the rights of creators is wrong in a very real sense." If it's so wrong, then why don't you ever speak out against it?

As far as saying which rights are more important than others, I don't see the point. Either someone has the right, or they don't. If they have the right, it should be respected. I treat others as I would have them treat me. I learned that when 4 as well.

A "very real" sense, yes. Not, however, a sense that I think is particularly egregious, or of high priority, or productive to worry about.

So because you don't think they should be worried about it, they then shouldn't be worried about it? Compelling. Maybe they, who actually have their own skin in the game, feel differently. Does it threaten you when someone feels differently than you?

Heh, and now we get to the root of how Mike "runs away" from you -- you won't shut up, EVER, and as long as you get the last word you can claim you won (even though it's just your one simplistic point repeated against dozens of opposing arguments)

"you can leave this debate any time. I'm not following you around. I'm responding to the points you make".

Says the guy who was first to comment on this article. That's not following.
So, its okay for him not to respond now? How many times have you accused Mike and others of hiding, of demanding that they answer you?

I'm saying it's correct because it in fact is the law and in fact people have copyright laws and in fact copyright rights are violated when someone pirates. If a pirate violates someone's rights, that is per se wrong. My moral compass is quite simple. I learned this stuff when I was like 4.

I see. So drinking was immoral during prohibition. As was freeing the slaves prior to emancipation?

That's not a moral compass. That's the opposite of a moral compass.

Anyone who thinks that the law is the definer of morals doesn't know what morals are.

I see. So drinking was immoral during prohibition. As was freeing the slaves prior to emancipation?

Drinking during Prohibition was illegal. It didn't violate anyone's personal property rights. Was it immoral? That depends on your perspective. There was no law that said slaves couldn't be freed before "emancipation," whatever event that refers to. So I don't get your point.

Neither of those examples involves violating someone's personal property rights. Can you come up with a single, nonextreme example where it's moral to violate someone's property rights?

Except from the viewpoint of slave owners freeing the slaves was aa violation of their personal property rights.

Their rights ended when the 13th Amendment was passed, no? What's that got to do with copyright?

Actually, the topic there was not copyright but the question of whether laws and morals are the same thing. And if I understand you correctly, you are saying that prior to the 13th Amendment, slavery was morally correct, because it was legal.

Can you come up with a single, nonextreme example where it's moral to violate someone's property rights?

Sure. I grew up in a small town. There were lots of trails through public forests and such, but also they would randomly intersect with lots of big private properties. And when, as kids, you're all out in the summer running around the woods, you occasionally cut across people's private property as a matter of course -- sometimes even climbing a fence here or there to do so, or ignoring a "no trespassing" sign. Is that technically illegal? Yes. Is it immoral? Meh. I won't be surprised if you claim it is, but I take a more measured and realistic view of life.

Drinking during Prohibition was illegal. It didn't violate anyone's personal property rights. Was it immoral? That depends on your perspective.

Hahahaha. Okay. So you're not actually going to address the obvious question.

There was no law that said slaves couldn't be freed before "emancipation," whatever event that refers to. So I don't get your point.

You're not dense. You're just being a dick now.

Let me rephrase for the pedantic: Prior to emancipation (you should learn your history if you can't figure out what "event" that refers to -- though, let me guess, you live in the south where they sorta skip over that one...) slavery was "legal." Freeing a slave by helping them go north (for example) was considered a violation of someone's property right. Do you think that was immoral?

Let me rephrase for the pedantic: Prior to emancipation (you should learn your history if you can't figure out what "event" that refers to -- though, let me guess, you live in the south where they sorta skip over that one...) slavery was "legal." Freeing a slave by helping them go north (for example) was considered a violation of someone's property right. Do you think that was immoral?

Events that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. You weren't clear what event you were talking about. Don't blame me for not being able to read your mind. No, I don't think freeing slaves is immoral. Slavery is immoral. So what? Are you suggesting that giving an author a property right in his creation is immoral? I know you won't answer.

Yep. The extreme example of slavery is one where I agree 100% that the law was wrong and immoral. I'm actually a human being. You got me. I think laws against same-sex marriage are immoral too since they're based on animus. OMG!

None of that has anything to do with copyright, and giving an author an exclusive right to his property is not in the least bit immoral. As I've noted practically every nation on earth grants these rights, and some even classify them as human rights.

But copyright does not giva an eclusive rigght to property, it takes away other's rights to mold their property into the form they widh.

It doesn't take the right away. The exclusive rights inhere in the author. They don't go to the public, only to be taken away and given to the author. Your ownership in the property you buy is limited. If you buy a DVD, you have certain rights in it, and you don't have other rights. If you buy a piece of land, same thing.

It doesn't take the right away. The exclusive rights inhere in the author.

No, the *rights* belong to the author-- and everyone else. I have the natural right to copy anything. If I take the time to learn woodworking, I can copy a chair. If I buy a computer, I can copy a song. You can only prevent this with laws-- by taking away everyone's rights, except the author's.

"Events that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment."

Those are "events"? From what I can understand, both are two different forms of written documents. If by events you mean the reading of the Emancipation Proclamation and the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, then I could see those as events. But two sheets of papers being "events"?

Maybe I could be looking at this differently, but I can't see how just two sheets of written paper can be "events". If what is written on them cause certain things to change during that time, then that's an event. Heck, even writing such a piece of important documents is an event in itself (albeit boring for some). You should be a little more precise on what you're saying. Just saying "[e]vents that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment" makes me wonder that you should brush up on your history.

Events that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. You weren't clear what event you were talking about. Don't blame me for not being able to read your mind.

Being a pedantic prick does not make anyone take you more seriously.

No, I don't think freeing slaves is immoral. Slavery is immoral. So what? Are you suggesting that giving an author a property right in his creation is immoral?

Don't pretend you're so dense you don't see the parallel. So, if slavery is immoral, but freeing the slaves was against the law and was a violation of property rights, by your own definition, you must admit that those poor plantation owners were "victims" right?

Don't pretend you're so dense you don't see the parallel. So, if slavery is immoral, but freeing the slaves was against the law and was a violation of property rights, by your own definition, you must admit that those poor plantation owners were "victims" right?

You are correct. The example of human beings as property is an exception to my rule. Even though it's illegal and hasn't existed in this country for 150 years and even though there's a constitutional amendment against it, you have spotted a flaw in my argument. You are absolutely 100% correct.

What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement? Are you suggesting that since slavery is wrong, that somehow makes copyright wrong? I fail to understand your point. Please explain.

This is so dumb, I can't believe we're still talking about it. Slavery has been against the law for well over a century. Why? Because it's unsound and immoral and disgusting and represents the absolute worst of humanity.

As I have already conceded several times explicitly, that would be an exception to my rule. You are all perfectly right to call me out for that, but considering it's been illegal for over a century and there's even an Amendment against it, I don't see the point. Slavery sucks, absolutely. I hate slavery.

Now answer me: What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement? Nothing.

Now answer me: What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement?

If you majored in logic (really?) then you know the answer to this.

It means that two things cannot be used as premises for moral conclusions:
1. That an act is immoral because it violates the law.
2. That an act is immoral because it violates a statutory property right.

Now, if you care to prove why copyright infringement is immoral without using either of those premises, then I'm all ears.

Let me ask you a simple, direct question, Mike: Are you suggesting that it's not immoral to violate someone's copyright rights? Please explain.

My morality is meaningless. Morality is something that each person decides for themselves. You are asking a question as if morality is some sort of objective thing.

Personally, as I've said time and time again -- despite your direct refusal to accept that it is an answer -- I do not believe it is right to disobey the wishes of content creators. Whether or not is "moral" or "immoral" is a decision that each individual can only decide for themselves.

[I know you won't answer, 'cause you never do. You always run away when your beliefs are challenged.]

I've answered you hundreds of times. You then start throwing temper tantrums if I don't answer the way you want me to. At some point I have to actually, you know, work. And that usually means to stop wasting my time answering someone who has no capability to debate like an adult.

My morality is meaningless. Morality is something that each person decides for themselves. You are asking a question as if morality is some sort of objective thing.

Personally, as I've said time and time again -- despite your direct refusal to accept that it is an answer -- I do not believe it is right to disobey the wishes of content creators. Whether or not is "moral" or "immoral" is a decision that each individual can only decide for themselves.

So close. You almost actually answered the question. I want to know what you, Mike Masnick, thinks. When Person A violates Person B's copyright rights against Person B's wishes, has Person A acted immorally?

Saying that your opinion is meaningless misses the point. Saying that's it's not "right" isn't quite what I'm asking. Your opinion is precisely what I want to know, no matter how meaningless you believe it to be. Please answer my direct question with a direct answer. Thanks.

As you've repeatedly stated yourself, you have an overly simplistic moral compass. That's why you don't see Mike's answer a "direct answer" -- it's too complex for you. Unfortunately, any question of morality is a complex one (at least to grownups) so you're going to have to learn to focus a little better and think a little harder.

Ah, so we're back to this. What happened to the person who claimed to understand nuance.

I answered the question. Now I'm off to go do work. I'm not "running away" from you. I have a lunch meeting and then a staff meeting and I have discovered, from personal experience in multiple discussions with you that you have no desire for an actual discussion. You just want to prove a point by ignoring any sort of nuance.

I've answered your questions. That you disagree with the answers is your problem, not mine.

Ah, so we're back to this. What happened to the person who claimed to understand nuance.

I answered the question. Now I'm off to go do work. I'm not "running away" from you. I have a lunch meeting and then a staff meeting and I have discovered, from personal experience in multiple discussions with you that you have no desire for an actual discussion. You just want to prove a point by ignoring any sort of nuance.

I've answered your questions. That you disagree with the answers is your problem, not mine.

So no, you won't give a simple yes or no answer to the direct question of whether you personally believe that piracy is immoral. Shocker.

[And yes, Mike, you clearly are running away. In the time it took you type your nonanswer, you could have actually answered the question. But instead you're playing the "I have to run" excuse. You'll never answer a difficult question directly.]

As one Joe to another, you need to get some perspective. You are asking for a simple, yes or no answer for a complex, shades of grey question.

How do you like it? AJ, do you, personally, think it's okay to take another human's life, against their wishes? I want a yes or no answer. If you don't answer, you're clearly running away from me, like you always do. If you answer other than a simple "yes" or "no", you're dodging the question.

So no, you won't give a simple yes or no answer to the direct question of whether you personally believe that piracy is immoral. Shocker.

That's not what you asked though, Joe. Let's look at your most recent wording of your question. You'll notice that it contains an internal contradiction:

I want to know what you, Mike Masnick, thinks. When Person A violates Person B's copyright rights against Person B's wishes, has Person A acted immorally?

You want to know what Mike thinks. But you also pose the situation as the ambiguous "Person A". Which means you are asking what Mike thinks is moral/immoral for everyone. And, as Mike clearly stated, he doesn't believe that's a question with any meaning, because he doesn't believe there's any such thing as an objective moral standard or that any person can provide any sort of meaningful answer about what's "moral" for anyone else. However, he also clearly stated that he himself doesn't do it because he feels it wouldn't be right -- which is a clear answer to your question to the fullest extent it can be answered by someone who (correctly) believes morals to be subjective and personal.

I've answered your questions. That you disagree with the answers is your problem, not mine.

You haven't directly answered my direct question, and you know it. I'll take a yes or no: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?

Why do you insist that you've answered it when you know you haven't? Just answer the question instead of giving excuses and pretending like you already have answered it. You do that every time I ask something difficult.

AJ, do you, personally, think it's okay to take another human's life, against their wishes? I want a yes or no answer. If you don't answer, you're clearly running away from me, like you always do. If you answer other than a simple "yes" or "no", you're dodging the question.

(Please note, I'm going to copy/paste this every single time I see you request a yes/no answer to a complicated question. You're warned.)

J, do you, personally, think it's okay to take another human's life, against their wishes? I want a yes or no answer. If you don't answer, you're clearly running away from me, like you always do. If you answer other than a simple "yes" or "no", you're dodging the question.

(Please note, I'm going to copy/paste this every single time I see you request a yes/no answer to a complicated question. You're warned.)

It depends on the facts. Is it an during a war while the rules of engagement and such have been followed? Yes. Murder away. Is it an abortion? I think that's murder too, but I'm OK with it. It's not for me and I think it's disgusting, but I respect the right to choose and this planet has too many people already. But illegal murder? No, that's wrong. Not sure what you think you're accomplishing with these questions, but I don't run away from questions.

Did you hear that sound, guy? That was the sound of you missing the point.

So, you *do* acknowledge that some questions are so complex that to answer them with a simple "yes" or "no" does not adequately explain one's position. Good, good. So, when Mike says that he thinks it's not right to go against the wishes of the content "creators" and infringe on their copyrights, but also says that they may not actually be victims, as they could actually be better off by someone infringing on their copyrights-- and you insist on converting that perfectly acceptable answer into a "yes" or "no", is that you being douche, or are you so blinded by wanting to be right that you can't realize when you're being illogical?

Did you hear that sound, guy? That was the sound of you missing the point.

So, you *do* acknowledge that some questions are so complex that to answer them with a simple "yes" or "no" does not adequately explain one's position. Good, good. So, when Mike says that he thinks it's not right to go against the wishes of the content "creators" and infringe on their copyrights, but also says that they may not actually be victims, as they could actually be better off by someone infringing on their copyrights-- and you insist on converting that perfectly acceptable answer into a "yes" or "no", is that you being douche, or are you so blinded by wanting to be right that you can't realize when you're being illogical?

This is an honest question.

Of course some questions can't be answered yes or no. If Mike's answer is yes, he should say yes. If it's no, he should say no. If it requires some explanation, then I welcome the explanation. This isn't hard.

He *has* answered. You just, apparently, don't like his answer. In your answer about taking someone's like, you have *several* yes's and no's. You have been here long enough to know exactly what Mike's position on copyright infringement is. The fact that you focus so much on making it a yes or no answer makes me think that you're attempting to "trap" him in some sort of "gotcha" question, or you're planning on quoting him out of context later. There is no other reason to insist on a simple yes or no answer to a complex issue.

So, give it up, guy. It can be either moral or immoral, depending on several factors-- many of which are subjective. That's your answer.

No he has not. The question is: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?

What is his exact answer? Please provide a link and please quote the exact text. I don't care if his answer is a yes or no, or if it takes 150 pages. I just want the explicit, direct answer to this question. I want an answer where he explains his personal beliefs about the morality. He hasn't answered, nor will he.

Now, he nows better than to force everyone else to have the same viewpoint so I heuss that was confusing for you

He can think it's not right, yet not think it to be immoral. The funny thing is, I wasn't even considering morality when I first posted in the comments to this article. I was just saying that it's wrong. You guys turned that into a morality issue. I think it's immoral too, but that's not the same thing. And don't forget that Mike has qualified that "it's not right to go against the author's wishes" significantly. For example, he doesn't think they should have the right in the first place, he doesn't think they should not wish for the right to be violated, he doesn't think that if the right is violated that they should do anything about it, he's not even sure that violating someone's rights even makes them a victim. So when he says that it's not right, that's not at all the whole story. The fact remains, he refuses to say whether it's moral or not, and he will never, ever, ever answer the question directly.

Perhaps you should give us a clear definition of what you mean by "moral/immoral", because you obviously have a very specific idea of how it differs from "right/wrong" and I'm not sure what that difference is, exactly...

For example, he doesn't think they should have the right in the first place

Where have I said that? Please point that out or admit you're making shit up.

he doesn't think they should not wish for the right to be violated

Where have I said that? Please point that out or admit you're making shit up.

he doesn't think that if the right is violated that they should do anything about it,

Where have I said that? Please point that out or admit you're making shit up.

On this one, I believe you are purposely misrepresenting my words. I have said that if their copyright is infringed upon, depending on the circumstances, they may *make things worse for themselves* by trying to enforce the copyright. That's not a moral statement on what they "should" do or not do. It's a practical statement of trying to help them not make things worse.

he's not even sure that violating someone's rights even makes them a victim

Yeah, now you're just saying things totally out of context. Notice you refuse to properly state what I did say, because you want to falsely imply I said something I didn't.

Why? I don't know, but you do it all the time.

So when he says that it's not right, that's not at all the whole story.

Lordy me, AJ has finally woken up to the fact that I've been saying all along that this is a nuanced question... and now he pretends it's some big discovery that makes me look bad. Holy fuck, dude.

The fact remains, he refuses to say whether it's moral or not, and he will never, ever, ever answer the question directly.

You're right, I post as an AC sometimes and sometimes I use this screenname. I understand the answer may be nuanced. Go ahead and answer, using as much nuance as you like. But please do answer, and don't pretend like you have answered when you know you have not.

And you missed the point of my claim of being an open book. If you ask me a direct question, I give you a direct answer. I don't run away. I don't use double talk. You are a closed book; I'm an open book. This thread is instructive on the point. Ask me a question, and I give you an answer.

You're right, I post as an AC sometimes and sometimes I use this screenname.

Just the one? :)

Oh, and I notice that Mr. YOU MUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! totally ignored every one of mine -- just like he did last time. Remember that time? When you promised me you'd answer my questions after I answered yours, and I answered yours... and *poof* AJ disappears into thin air.

I have one other, but I haven't used it in a long time. You know which one it is. Sometimes I use Tor, but usually I just use whatever wifi is available without a proxy. So what? You let people post anonymously or with any screen name they want. That what I do.

Oh, and I notice that Mr. YOU MUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! totally ignored every one of mine -- just like he did last time. Remember that time? When you promised me you'd answer my questions after I answered yours, and I answered yours... and *poof* AJ disappears into thin air.

I thought I addressed all of your points. Which question did I miss? Ask me a direct question, and I will give you direct answer. I'll check back regularly to make sure I don't miss it. I'll give you the best answer I can, addressing directly whatever your question may be.

Not sure why you're complaining about me not answering ONE question, when there are many, many questions of mine you've just ignored. For example, you said I've violated your rights. I asked you to explain which right I've violated. You have not. And there's many more where that came from.

And you still haven't answered the question about whether you think it's immoral. At first you said you answered it, then later you said you didn't have enough facts. I've provided you with three fact patterns. What else do you need? Where's the answer? Shall I type out the question again, or can you find it just above? Let me know. I await your answer.

Hilarious. AJ, you make me laugh.

I can tell that having a simple, direct conversation makes you uncomfortable. Were you always this way?

In reading Mike's comments I think it's saft to say Mike was talking morals and not law when he was saying "it's not right/proper" and thus a satifactory answer to your question regarding morals and not a comment on a seperate issue.

In reading Mike's comments I think it's saft to say Mike was talking morals and not law when he was saying "it's not right/proper" and thus a satifactory answer to your question regarding morals and not a comment on a seperate issue.

I disagree. I've asked him to discuss morality directly. He has not. And don't forget that he later said his answer depends on the facts. I have supplied him with three fact patterns. He hasn't addressed those fact patterns. So no, he hasn't answered the question. The fact that he said he needed more facts before he could answer indicates that he hasn't answered.

I'm awaiting his answer. And I await his pointing out the ONE question I didn't answer that he wants answered. I've been checking back all morning waiting for him to chime in. And he says I don't answer questions and I run away? Weird. I'm here, ready to answer him.

Saying it's not proper/right to go against the content creators is a concrete moral statment that you simply choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your anti-mike narritive.

As I've already explained, even that statement from him, which by the way he has explicitly said is the ONLY reason in his opinion piracy is not OK, comes with many qualifications. So many, in fact, that it's not at all clear to me that he thinks it immoral. And the fact that he is hemming and hawing and playing games and giving excuses and doing everything in his power to not directly the question about morality only tells me that he doesn't think it to be immoral. So, no, I don't agree with you.

Why don't we just let Mike come and speak for himself. You can try an psychoanalyze me all you want, but at the end of the day Mike has not answered the question directly. This is his m.o. to a "t." I've never seen anyone run away when questioned about his beliefs like Mike does. It's amazing to me that he's so critical of everyone else, yet so unwilling to be critical of himself.

I know you're reading this Mike. Where's the ONE question I didn't answer? And where's you answer to my question about morality?

and if you view copyright infringement as bad because of lost sales where payment would otherwise been rendered it'd be 'piracy is wrong...except where they would not have bought if a pirated copy was not available'"

At first, early on in the thread, I used right/wrong to mean legal/illegal. Now, it is abundantly, explicitly clear that I am asking Mike about the morality of it.

My question could not be any clearer. Mike said he couldn't answer without more facts. That shows that even he acknowledges that he has not answered it. I have supplied him with three simple fact patterns.

I await Mike to answer the question of whether infringement in each of those fact patterns is immoral. Not right. Not wrong. Not legal. Not illegal. Immoral yes, or immoral no.

I could not be any more clear about what the question is. He has not answered it. He said he needed facts. I gave him facts. There is no answer.

I've NEVER heard anyone use right to mean law other than you. In fact you use it in such an odd way I suspect you're intentionally being confusing

The fact Mike even said "it's not right" shows that mike has some cases where he feels it's..... not right. That fits with any sane view of morality: the situation surrounding the act must factor into whether and act is right or wrong.(with rare exception for things like rape which have no justification)

And yes, I mean "right and wrong" the way NORMAL people mean it. GRRRR....

I've NEVER heard anyone use right to mean law other than you. In fact you use it in such an odd way I suspect you're intentionally being confusing

The fact Mike even said "it's not right" shows that mike has some cases where he feels it's..... not right. That fits with any sane view of morality: the situation surrounding the act must factor into whether and act is right or wrong.(with rare exception for things like rape which have no justification)

And yes, I mean "right and wrong" the way NORMAL people mean it. GRRRR....

At first, early on in the thread, I used right/wrong to mean legal/illegal.

If you actually mean this, then you're still acting like a troll. Here are the exact words you used at the beginning of the thread, substituting "unlawful" for "wrong":

But it does matter that it's unlawful. If it weren't unlawful, it wouldn't matter that it happens. But because it is unlawful, it matters that it happens. You and Mike and the rest of the gang might not think that it matters that it's unlawful, but in the real world when someone is doing something unlawful, it actually matters.

The fact that you don't/won't acknowledge that much speaks volumes[...]

Nobody at Techdirt has ever said that piracy is not unlawful. Never. They have always acknoledged it.

So, by your definition, you're attacking them for something that they never said.

I'm still waiting for Mike to answer the question that he said he needed more facts to answer. I've supplied the facts, and yet there is no answer.

Mike has not, nor will he ever, actually and directly answer my simple question about his personal beliefs. Mike runs away every single time because he is, fundamentally and relentlessly, a dishonest person.

and i'd say he would be justified in not continuing discussion with you because you don't aknowledge his answers. what's the point of mike answering you if you just say "your answer is invalid because pancakes"?

As I've explained, he has not. He said he needed more facts before he could answer. How could he have answered and have needed more facts before answering? That makes no sense. I provided him with three fact patterns. He is purposefully not answering.

also, i notice a trend with online blogs for peope to abandon threads on older articles after awhile in favor of commenting on the new even if there are unanswered questions.

i'd say a lot of the questions unanswered by mike are probaby more due to such behavior than him 'running away' since he does take the time to answer questions(even when knowing the answer will be disregarded due to bullshit reasons) and debate critics.

Of course some questions can't be answered yes or no. If Mike's answer is yes, he should say yes. If it's no, he should say no. If it requires some explanation, then I welcome the explanation. This isn't hard.

I gave you an explanation, and you said it wasn't an answer because I didn't say yes or no. You're so full of it.

I gave you an explanation, and you said it wasn't an answer because I didn't say yes or no. You're so full of it.

I want your answer, whatever it may be, as long as it addresses the question. Be it a "yes," or a "no," or 150 pages long. I just want the answer. Rather than complaining about me not accepting the answer you haven't given, why not just answer the question?

It has to do with infringement because infringement also has a dynamic that can make some cases of infrigement more moral than others.

The anti-piracy folks will tell you the reason infringemt is teh evulz!!1!!11 is because of lost sales where the pirate otherwise would buy.

Thus it follows that a case where you pirate that which you would never/cannot buy is a more moral instance of piracy than a case where you pirate something you are willing and able to buy but you still pirate instead of buying.

You haven't directly answered my direct question, and you know it. I'll take a yes or no: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?

It depends on the facts.

Just as you said before. And, my morals have no impact on anyone else's, so as we've pointed out a million times at this point, the question is stupid and meaningless.

Why do you insist that you've answered it when you know you haven't?

Because I have answered it. Over and over and over again. It's just that you've asked a stupid question that requires a nuanced answer, and when I give that nuanced answer you jump up and down like a little baby saying "you must answer yes or no!!!!!!!!!"

Copyright does not actually grant the ability to artists to do anything. Without copyright, they can still speak however they like. They can still produce art. They can still sell that art. They can still dispose of their art however they want.

The only thing copyright does is allow copyright holders to take away rights from everyone else. It takes away property rights: if I have a copy of a piece of art, copyright takes away my right to make a duplication if it, with my own labor and materials, and dispose of that duplication (my property) however I like.

And because that "property" is expression, it takes away (some) of my right to speak. You may say that nobody has the "right" to speak what others say, but this is complete hogwash. Morally speaking, there is no difference between speaking words that I created, and speaking the words of others. At worst, it may make my speech boring and derivative (in the negative sense). But I have just as much of a right to speak in a boring and derivative way as I do in an interesting and unique way. When you disallow this, you are removing my right to speak as I please.

In fact, "speaking the words of others" is the very thing copyright is supposed to encourage. Copyright is supposed to incentivize distribution to the public, not to provide legal fodder for injunctions and lawsuits. It exists to promote copying, not prevent it.

And both of these rights - unlike copyright - are inalienable rights. They arise from fundamental civil rights that are innate in all humanity, and the government does not have the moral right to take them away.

So why do we have copyright at all? You know the answer to this. "In enacting a copyright law, Congress must consider two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public?" In theory, the public voluntarily gives up some of its innate property and free speech rights. It does this so that the public may benefit from the production and use of more art.

And when copyright was limited to commercial infringers (as it was for most of its history), it was only a minor evil. Businesses simply don't have the same moral rights to speech and personal property as individuals, so taking away their rights was a very limited moral wrong. Additionally, it was supposed to be a temporary grant of privileges, further mitigating that evil.

It is not a moral issue. It is was never any sort of "moral imperative" arising from the "rights" of artists. It is a purely utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. To the extent that it works, it is tolerating a minor wrongdoing to promote a greater good.

This may make it justifiable. It does not make it moral. It is never moral to take away the rights of others. Morally speaking, the people who are prevented from accessing works are just as much "victims" of copyright holders, as copyright holders are of pirates. They have had their inalienable rights taken away. Copyright holders haven't.

This makes you a complete hypocrite. For all your caterwauling about the "rights" of copyright holders, I have never heard you defend the rights of the public that copyright takes away from them. Not once. You've never even acknowledged that they are rights at all. You've never shown an inkling that copyright even could "victimize" the public.

This deliberate ignorance of the public's rights colors your every view. It makes you an extremist. And, make no mistake about it, your views on copyright are far more outside the mainstream's than Mike's. Not just morally, but legally. There is no behavior from copyright holders that is so odious that you haven't twisted the law to defended it.

You still defend Righthaven. You still defend the ICE seizures. News flash: Rojadirecta, Dajaz1, and the people sued by Righthaven are victims. Their rights were infringed upon. You blamed them then, and you're still blaming them now.

You said you learned your morals when you were four. Obviously your moral compass hasn't progressed much since then. You have the morals of a schoolyard bully, claiming he's a victim because his knuckles are bruised.

To the best of my recollection, non-commercial (whatever that means) copying has always been actionable. The exceptions that now excuse copying are of more recent vintage (fair use, education, libraries, etc.).

I believe I am accurate in saying that until some years ago when the criminal infringement provision was changed to incorporate "financial gain" as an element of the criminal offense, non-commercial (again, whatever that means)infringement was not deemed a criminal act.

That makes no sense. Copyright doesn't violate everyone's rights. It gives to an author an exclusive right. It also takes away rights that other people would have had but for the copyright, but those other people's rights are violated. They are taken away LEGALLY. If it's done legally, then it's not a violation OF THE LAW. And they're obviously not inalienable rights, nor is the First Amendment absolute. Copyright is a well known exception. Nice try though.

If I thought for one second that either dajaz1 or rojadirecta had their rights violated, I'm be there with you. As I see it, they're two criminals that got lucky when the government decided to not prosecute. And the people Righthaven sued, as far as I can tell, were committing copyright infringement. There might have been one or two with a decent fair use defense, but suing someone with a potentially sound defense doesn't violate their rights--they were still prima facie infringers.

Copyright doesn't violate everyone's rights. It gives to an author an exclusive right. It also takes away rights that other people would have had but for the copyright

This is a contradiction. If I have an inalienable right (like a personal property right or free speech right), and it is infringed upon, my rights are violated. If copyright "takes away rights that I would have had but for copyright," then my rights are being infringed upon.

The only reason copyright is theoretically justifiable, is because those rights aren't "taken away." They are granted. If I do not grant those rights, but they are still taken away, then my rights are violated.

It's not rocket science.

but those other people's rights are violated. They are taken away LEGALLY.

That just means that the law is infringing on my rights. We are, by your own insistence, talking about morality, not legality. When we're talking about morals, it doesn't matter if what we're talking about is legal or not. If the two don't match up, then it is the law that is wrong - not the actions of lawbreakers. In fact, those who are punished under unjust laws are victims.

If I thought for one second that either dajaz1 or rojadirecta had their rights violated, I'm be there with you. As I see it, they're two criminals that got lucky when the government decided to not prosecute. And the people Righthaven sued, as far as I can tell, were committing copyright infringement.

You see it that way because you're an apologist for totalitarianism, at least where copyright is concerned. In your view, as long as someone is a "prima facie infringer," it doesn't matter how many rights of theirs get violated, or how many laws are disregarded in order to punish them.

You don't care that the seized websites' owners unquestionably had their rights violated. You don't care that Righthaven was running an extortion racket, using the courts as muscle. Even if what they were doing was legal, it would still be morally wrong. And you're too ethically stunted to even recognize this.

Funny you mention the constitution since copyright is an *optional* power given to congress and not a rule goverment must follow like not passing laws regarding relegion.

And it mandates that any copyrights/patents are only granted for limited times. It's clearly intended that works become freely copyable at some point and not some inalienable moral property right.

Yep, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright laws. And Congress did so right at the very start and we've had federal copyright laws for about 225 years. And before that, the states had their own copyright laws. I never said it's an inalienable moral right. I've always been perfectly clear that it's a statutory right. Nonetheless, it is a right and it is to be respected as someone's right. I don't believe in moral rights or natural rights or any of that stuff. I look at only one thing: Do they have the right, or do they not? I'm a simple person.

Then I suppose I'm just imagining all those comments of yours in THIS ARTICLE ALONE screaming about morals?
You are a troll. You constantly say things that quite clearly aren't true, since the evidence against what you're saying is staring us right in the face.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Umm, not all that clear. Remember SOPA? When the people made their voices heard concerning copyright and the web?

And let me guess, you have no problem with deciding for themselves which rights are important and which are not.

I have no problems when it's the majority of the people deciding. That's what a representative government is supposed to be about. To represent the will of the people. That got lost somewhere near K Street as far as I can tell.

I've seen a couple of your comments on this page basically saying that "we can't have people deciding which laws are good or not". Who do you suggest should make our laws? Corporations? The government itself? Or are you referring only to lowly non-lawyers when you speak of "people"?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Umm, not all that clear. Remember SOPA? When the people made their voices heard concerning copyright and the web?"

The SOPA backlash was mostly to do with "oh noes, they gonna take away my youtube and facebook". I doubt that most of the people had a clue what SOPA would have and would not have done. If you all did was read Techdirt, you swallowed so much FUD and crap that you wouldn't know which way was up.

SOPA is a horrible situation to cite, it was all about fear mongering and little about reality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, because clearly approved copyright legislation is never, ever used as precedent for further legislation to put more restrictions in place, just copyright length extensions. They've clearly never appealed "Oh but you lengthened copyright before, so lengthen it again!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Once again I feel this conversation has detoured off of its actual trajectory, just as I pointed out in my previous comment: Previous Comment.

You have jumped on the phrase "betterment of all people" -- read it as "betterment of man" and then run with it down to extreme selflessness which like any extreme doesn't fix anything if anything you simply take someone else's misfortune as your own. (Personal opinion)

As for the troll comment, if you had read all of average_joe's previous comments you would understand that is exactly what he has been doing, only eloquently. This isn't a question of nice, just a question of does he dwell under a bridge? -- Yes! Just one right near a grammar school.

Re:

But it does matter that it's wrong.

Except, of course, that it's not wrong.

What is protected by copyright is expression - in a more abstract sense, culture. When people share culture - legally or not - they are doing something that is good. Non-commercial piracy is morally no different than checking out a book from the public library. And checking out books from the library can never morally bad. Even if the library acquired a used copy and didn't pay the publisher; even if the author didn't want the book in the library in the first place; even if Congress made libraries illegal.

Piracy is certainly unlawful. Stopping it may be necessary (and in commercial cases, it absolutely is, IMO). But it is certainly not morally wrong. When stopping piracy is necessary, it is a necessary evil.

It was even phrased as such by Congress: "The granting of such exclusive rights [copyrights] under the proper terms and conditions, cofers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly."

...The catch is that moral debates like this are pointless. No matter who wins this debate, there will be billions of people around the planet who believe that it is not immoral in the least, and more laws or harsher penalties will never convince them otherwise.

So, if you're a content creator, the practical thing to do - the thing that they must do, if they want to operate as a business in a free market - is figure out ways to convince these people to do business with you.

That's why this is the focus of Techdirt.

Also, you need to get off of the fact that it's "violating rights." Copyright is a legal right, not a moral one. It exists merely because the public (through congress) will it to be so - and they grant it for their own interests, not copyright holders'.

Unlike, say, the right of free speech, or the right to due process - things which are not granted by the government. If the government takes those things away (even if they do it lawfully), then the government is violating your rights. On the other hand, if the government eliminated copyright altogether, nobody's rights would be violated - they would simply cease to exist at all.

Re:

Piracy is not morally wrong. It really isn't. It's false perceptions of entitlement to property and delusional beliefs in property rights on the part of "creators" that makes the act called "piracy" a problem. It's only a problem, because they make it a problem. They could do things differently that would render the act of "piracy" neutral in effect on their business; they might even be able to use file sharing as a tool to expand their mind share. What's really wrong here is the idea that a law can grant the power to censor speech.

Let me clarify that a bit. Art, all art, is speech. Furthermore, everything that happens on the internet is communication, thus it is speech. Copyright restricts the distribution of that speech. Ergo, copyright censors speech. Art is not property, it isn't even a product. Art is communication. At best, art is a service.

You claim people are copying something that you feel they should be paying for and that the taking of it is morally wrong. You think they shouldn't have it if they don't pay for it. You think they are wrong to copy it. Your whole moral position relies on the idea that it's the author's property and we Americans have a deeply ingrained attachment to the idea of property rights. You think these people are violating property they should be paying for. Why? It's not really property.

If you really want to take the idea of property to its literal ends with art (i.e. speech), then you're forgetting all the prior speech that's bound up in every single piece of art in existence. Everyone's "property" is composed of the "property" of many other people built up over thousands of years. The very making of new works violates the colloquial definition of property of all art before it. How do you reconcile your own property rights, as you see them, in a new work without the inevitable violation of prior properties? You can't. It's impossible to form new works (thus new "properties") without making use of prior properties that violate the rights of those other property holders. Art does not exist in discrete little boxes completely disparate from each other. They overlap, share, and borrow from each other, all of them, simultaneously.

However, this can all be easily solved by coming to realize that nobody can violate your free will. You can choose not to create and therefore, your willingness to create can be bought, if you so wish it. No one can acquire works you don't create and if you secure fair compensation for the work you do, it doesn't matter one way or another where that work gets distributed. This way, you're not relying on laws and moral authority to ensure you get compensated for your labor, you're selling the labor directly instead of selling the infinitely replicable information that is so easy to transmit. Now, your work isn't your "product", it's actually your best marketing tool. Laws and morality become irrelevant to your business.

You may be a dissenter, but you are an ignorant one that doesn't understand the nature of communication, the massive importance of unrestricted access to works, and the many alternate methods to monetize art that are completely independent of the need for copyright. Drop the ownership of the results and sell the effort instead. That will solve all problems with "piracy". You have options, you just refuse to see or take advantage of them. That does not constitute any wrong doing on our part. Don't blame us for your shortcomings and lack of vision.

Re: Re:

"Let me clarify that a bit. Art, all art, is speech. Furthermore, everything that happens on the internet is communication, thus it is speech. Copyright restricts the distribution of that speech. Ergo, copyright censors speech. Art is not property, it isn't even a product. Art is communication. At best, art is a service."

That is more tortured logic than the old Monty Python Duck / Witch scene. Wow.

You are all over the road mixing the meaning of free and free speech and forgetting that the two don't interchange freely. Freedom of speech does not directly imply that all of your speech (or art, or music) is immediately in the public domain. Your free speech rights don't include the right to copy the works of others, plain and simple. In the same manner that your liberty of movement or right to assemble doesn't mean you can move into my house or have a meeting of Misreaders Anonymous in my living room.

We as a society award those who create new work with certainly rights and privileged under law, stemming in the US from the constitution. You know, that document you keep pointing to without fully understanding.

Ignorance is reading your own meaning into something that just doesn't jive with what is actually there, what the laws say, what the courts say, and so on. Don't blame us for your shortcomings and lack of understanding.

Re: Re: Re:

No, you're equating property of estate with ownership of speech. They're not the same. Exercising my free speech doesn't violate any property the way trespassing violates property. When I trespass on your property I'm depriving you the use of your property. Conversely, if I copy and distribute your speech, I deprive you of nothing; you have exactly what you had before I copied works created by you.

What's more, you're making up a false dichotomy for free speech that doesn't actually exist. The default of all speech is to the public domain, but copyright intercepts that. Copyright is the exception, not the rule.

"We as a society award those who create new work with certainly rights and privileged under law, stemming in the US from the constitution. You know, that document you keep pointing to without fully understanding."

You mean Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution? Specifically "Congress shall have the power, in order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Is that what you're referring to?

Congress shall have the power, but not the mandate, so long as it promotes the progress. The problem is, that copyright has been rendered obsolete by the internet and now works against the defining requirements for its own existence.

"Ignorance is reading your own meaning into something that just doesn't jive with what is actually there, what the laws say, what the courts say, and so on. Don't blame us for your shortcomings and lack of understanding."

The laws are wrong. My understanding is perfectly clear, more so than yours apparently. Your perception is clouded by your desire to maintain the status quo because you falsely believe that it is beneficial and necessary for you as a potential or actual copyright holder.

I have bias too. However, my bias leans toward the freedom for all to have access to works of culture and knowledge regardless of economic standing because history bears out the fact that a more educated people is a more progressive and productive people. When people have unrestricted access to works, it creates a positive feedback loop that accelerates human progress.

Do you think people should be able to "own" certain types of speech and have the power to deny access for people that don't pay you? This whole idea of ownership of speech is completely contrary to the betterment of society, which copyright is supposed to serve. Unfortunately, copyright only serves the lucky few that can buy the laws that favor them.

The best solution to "piracy" is to offer the software under as many price options as possible. Including free with advertisements. Even if it's a new $60 retail game, free+advertisements is much more profitable because there will always be people that want to play a game and have to choose between dinner and a game.

Re: Re: Nerd alert

Actually, that's terrible philosophy. What Spock should have said was "Had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong." Spock had to choose himself because he was the only one that could do it. Purely logical.

"First up, there's an anonymous comment yet again underlining the fact that focusing on morals is missing the point:"

Let me make it clear down here, in case it gets lost in the rest:

If you only focus on what technology allows, without considering the moral implications, you will almost always be wrong or hurting someone.

You can go investigate the implications of a certain medical technology that goes by the street name "roofies". On a purely technical level, it is a technology or product that allows you to do so many more things than without it. But there are moral issues with it, and thus it is illegal.

You cannot escape moral questions just by saying they are not relevant. In piracy, morals aren't relevant to you because you are 100% gaining without loss. So of course, from your stand point any discussion of morals is wrong because then you would have to actually consider the effects of your actions.

Would you walk into George Lukas's house, walk up to his (giant) computer, and knock off a copy of the star wars movies to your hard drive and walk away without considering his opinion? Would you have no moral qualms about doing it in front of him?

Oh wait... there is no discussion of morals here, because you don't have to face people. The internet lets you hide, so you can ignore the moral implications.

Re:

Technology, in this case, doesn't result in any measurable harm. You can't claim a loss on what might have been. A roofie produces a clear and measurable harm. It violates that person's free will, whereas copying doesn't take away anything from the author that they had to begin with.

I spent the day talking to dozens of odious piracy apologists today in Leesburg. One thing no one had an answer for is why despite the fact that creator's rights (ie copyright) is in almost every international human rights convention- the discussion has turned away from it and this universally acknowledged human right has been subjugated to the so-called right to freeload.

Most recently, the 1996 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognized the human right of all people to the protection of the moral and material interests derived from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author This right is derived from the inherent dignity and worth of all members of the human family.

The human rights of artists and creators are also recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the 1988 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the 1952 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms In all these instances, a multitude of nations joined together to recognize the international and fundamental human rights that artists and performers have regarding their creative works.

So for all of this talk of natural law, freeloading, sharing, censorship, blah, blah, blah- it is only the creators rights that have time and again been truly affirmed as a universal human right.

So you piracy apologists who think you occupy some moral high ground are simply delusional. Creators rights have been codified as a human right, not your right to access that content without compensating the lawful owner.

Re: Re:

Government grants no monopolies on books, movies, songs or software in aggregate. Go create your own. It is not a monopoly if tens of millions of songs, movies, books or games are out there competing for you entertainment dollar is it? Just like the market for pants, a pair of Levis 501's competes with Lee Wranglers.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Where did I say there is an apple monopoly? The barrier to entry would be if the goverment declared an "growerright" where only one company(and it's licensees) could grow and sell fruits that match the "apple" pattern or engineered fruits close enough to apples to be infringing on the growerright.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But in the case of entertainment we are talking about exclusive rights to a single unit of output. Not an entire class. I'd agree with you if only the studios were allowed to make movies- but that's not the case. Many fine independent films are made around the world every year.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't think you know what a monopoly actually is, you spend too much time listening to Masnick who doesn't know either. From our friends at Wikipedia:

"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[4]
A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in a game theoretic manner – meaning that expectations about their behavior affects other players' choice of strategy and vice versa. This is to be contrasted with the model of perfect competition in which companies are "price takers" and do not have market power."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Monopolies are characterized by high barriers to entry. The barriers to entry in to entertainment couldn't be much lower. Success is driven far more by talent than access to markets. So this thoughtless accusation of "monopoly" is more bullshit form the apologist playbook.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Then in your world there is a monopoly on Shell gasoline, BP gasoline, Exxon gasoline, etc.

It's all gasoline and interchangeable. No one needs to have Shell gasoline exclusively. If it's preferred but not available you can fill up at BP. However in the entertainment world opportunities for substitute are massively greater by a factor of millions. So I call bullshit on the monopoly.

Re: Re: Re:

Also, "making your own" is the entire point of piracy. You use them fancy computors to magic up your own copies of the thing you want. Sure there's no hard work involved but that's irrelevant to whether something is made or not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And to ad to the making your own thing: would you counsider baking a pizza from scract with storeboght ingredients making your own? After all you didn't come up with the idea of pizza, you just copied other's creative output.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I guess you're unable to make your point in the realm we were discussing, so Is pizza covered by intellectual property law? No. And most often, I use a cookbook which is covered by copyright and which I compensated the creator. So another swing and another miss.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The point is that it's someone else's creative output that came up with pizza and you copy that creative output and yet most would still call that "making your own pizza"

Also, the idea for pizza did not come from the person who's selling that cookbook and they did not ask permission. Plus, recipes aren't covered by copyrigth so you clould share it with all uour friends(and again, most would call it making your own)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Copying is not making or creating. Time and again the right of creators has been declared as a human right allowing them to profit from their own creativity. There's no corollary human right for copying or sharing. Read the human rights declarations cited above. I get that you don't like it but it is a longstanding human right.

Re: Re: Re:

A book is a container for information. The monopoly is on the distribution of the information. That is why you fail. It's not a product monopoly, it's a distribution monopoly. I can't distribute a PDF version of the Harry Potter series, only those authorized by J. K. Rowling may distribute it.

Re:

I spent the day talking to dozens of odious piracy apologists today in Leesburg. One thing no one had an answer for is why despite the fact that creator's rights (ie copyright) is in almost every international human rights convention- the discussion has turned away from it and this universally acknowledged human right has been subjugated to the so-called right to freeload.

I would imagine that it's because you phrased it in such a stupid and meaningless manner, that befits those who ask if you have stopped beating your wife.

The very fact that you think that anyone is arguing for a "right to freeload" shows that you do not deserve to be a part of this debate, because you do not understand the very basics of what is up for discussion.

Re: Re: Re:

Considering this...

'I spent the day talking to dozens of odious piracy apologists today in Leesburg.'

... is the very first line in the post he's replying to, I'd say it's just returning the favor.

Civil discussions are certainly to be desired, but when the other person has made it clear from the get-go that they're not interested in holding one, and would much rather use insults, ad-homs and straw-man arguments instead, then there's no point in taking them seriously or treating them as anything other than a troll looking to provoke a response.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not always. There's a genuine discussion here. However, your insistence that it is morally wrong, even if there is no-one willing to sell in a market, is not only asinine, but it's also bad business practice. If you're not capitalizing on every market, then you aren't performing to the best of your market's sustainability.

That fact that there are a small minority who insist that there is nothing but "piracy apologism", with such eloquent quotes as "fuck off and die, you lying sack of shit", adds nothing to the debate.

Let me assure you, there could have been a place for progressive IP laws. But that is not what's going on the the US and UK - you get treated worse for copyright infringement than you do for rape and grievous bodily harm. That's for linking to supposedly infringing content which has not been proven in a court of law without tainted evidence.

For someone who insists that the rule of law is above all, you sure seem to have no concept of the history of IP, and copyrights in particular, where that laws always seem to be inadequate for a small minority who employ proven fraudsters, embezzlers and perjurers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"There's a genuine discussion here. However, your insistence that it is morally wrong, even if there is no-one willing to sell in a market, is not only asinine, but it's also bad business practice. If you're not capitalizing on every market, then you aren't performing to the best of your market's sustainability."

What you are missing is that it's an illegal act that is hurting the market, not any real market pressures. The fact that the market is currently destroyed by illegal acts makes it a poor market to judge business by anyway.

What you are suggesting is that he has fewer rights than the consumer, and that he has only the choice of "give it to the pirates" or "stay home". On a site that pushes free speech and constitutional rights all over the place, it seems really funny that his options are "shut up or get ripped off".

" where that laws always seem to be inadequate for a small minority who employ proven fraudsters, embezzlers and perjurers."

Let's shut down construction, wall street, government, and your local burger joint (they probably bribed someone to get zoning). Your standards are a little higher than the real world allows for.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Er, a monopoly is a privaledge not a right

You guys love to throw those terms around but you never explain what you mean or why it matters. The Constitution says "exclusive right." The Copyright Act says "exclusive rights." The right/privilege distinction isn't important. Either someone has a right or they don't. Nor is this a monopoly in the big, bad, evil monopoly since. A baker has a monopoly over a loaf of bread, but he hasn't cornered the bread market. An author has a monopoly over his book, but he hasn't cornered the book market. You throw out the terms 'cause they sound bad, but I doubt you even understand them. Too much Techdirt will rot your brain. Learn to think for yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A baker has a monopoly over a loaf of bread, but he hasn't cornered the bread market.

You picked an example from a very innovative industry that has no copyright protections. A baker cannot sue me if I make bread that is exactly like his bread. That is why he doesn't have a monopoly on bread. An author *can* sue me for making a book exactly like his book, and that's why he has a monopoly on that book. In fact, he can sue me for not using any of the exact text of his book, but only using similar characters. (It's been done before!)

This illustrates the problem with current copyright law. While I will agree that it's "supposed" to only cover specific expressions, you and I both know that this is often ignored-- especially in the face of a lawsuit from a billion dollar company.

Learn to think for yourself.

All you ever do is parrot what you have been told. I suggest that you actually think about the things discussed here. Don't think about it from the perspective of someone who stands to gain from the status quo, like a lawyer who hopes to get paid to sort out all this mess, but instead from someone with nothing to gain either way.

Re: Re:

I would imagine that it's because you phrased it in such a stupid and meaningless manner, that befits those who ask if you have stopped beating your wife.

Remarkably, most of people I talked to were even more misinformed than you and your fellow Techdirtbags on some very basic facts. I mean like repeating myths about SOPA as facts. Really lame Freeloader 101 stuff. it was quite surprising actually.

The very fact that you think that anyone is arguing for a "right to freeload" shows that you do not deserve to be a part of this debate, because you do not understand the very basics of what is up for discussion.

Few people failed to acknowledge that the overarching effect of their specious objections is rampant, uncontrolled freeloading. And no one had an answer for the justification of violating the human rights of creators that their position implied. All-in-all, it was very satisfying to watch them flop around looking for moral justification to ignore a longstanding human right that has been well established by any number of human rights convention.

Anyway, who paid for you to be at the TPP discussions today?

I didn't handle the details, but I'm pretty sure it was free. If the number and level of impact of the opponents inside and the embarrassingly feckless protest outside is any gauge, I'd say the opposition is in trouble. A Wyden surrogate showed up, but neither he nor Issa bothered to stop by which tells me they must have had something better to do. Maybe they were busy trying to get someone else to sign their letter.

Re: Re: Re:

Copyright is not a "longstanding human right", or even a basic human right. It's a mere blip in the history of human's creating and sharing culture, and most people have considerably less respect for it than actual human rights.

Re:

So, you mean that devaluing a human rights convention by adding stuff that does not belong in there gives YOU copyright maximalist the moral high ground??

You may have enough money to buy laws, you may be wealthy enough to codify your beliefs into the humanly most valued charters, but despite your financial power, despite your propaganda-machinery, you will not succeed in eradicating one simple thought:

Sharing is good.

It's how we learn. It's how we evolve. It's how we got from stone to digital age. Putting a fee on the sharing and calling the fee a human right gains you no sympathy, no understanding and absolutely no moral superiority.

Solution

Re: Solution

Incentivize, encourage and reward purchases by those that are willing and able to buy, try and get those that are in the 'maybe' area to move to the 'willing to buy' area with previously mentioned incentives and rewards, and ignore the ones who cannot or will not buy.

Re: Solution

The truth is, "piracy" is actually good. The act is actually the dissemination of knowledge and culture to the masses in a fast and efficient manner which can maximize the information's utility to human progress. The more information and culture we have access to, the faster we grow. Think of your brain as a tool box and information is a tool. The more information you have, the more tools you have at your disposal, thus you can accomplish more with the greater variety of tools available to you. Piracy has a positive impact on human culture and knowledge because of greater exposure. Greater exposure means faster catalyzation of knowledge. Copyright is actually a barrier to this.

"Can I willfully violate your rights?"
Yep, by passing laws to take them away from me.

It's 2012, and *NEVER* before has there ever been such an opportunity for those who clamor about rights to sue me for having an *IDEA* than ever before.

Any time someone makes something new and refreshing, there's a line longer than unemployment to sue them for it.

Three things changed this for the worse:
-The 1976 copyright law change. By opening up copyright as an "automatic", abuse has skyrocketed to immeasurable percentages.

-The 1997 DMCA provision, which puts the "automatic" power to take down "infringement" by allegation. If those who are found to take down inappropriately, there is no punishment for them. The "damage award" is limited to $1500, which doesn't even cover lawyer fees.

-The 2011/12 SOPA bill, despite failing, has shown there's more to these bills than "protection", such as Dodd's statement about money and who it goes to (not those who can't pass the bill, of course). It shows these lobbying efforts are about control.

Control to keep me from making new works and not a thing about infringing.

Thank you for screwing up my chances of earning a living by supporting these issues.

Regarding trolls

"Three out of four top-voted comments came in response to one of our more tenacious bridge-dwellers, on our post about the content industry continuing to punish paying customers with their misguided attempts to fight piracy"

I love arguing with the TechDirt trolls and clearly a lot of other people do as well. It's easy to score points on people who don't understand the technology they're struggling to respond to, and we feel good about winning every time. But layups aren't everything.

I am growing tired of their not reading the articles they're posting about.

They fall back on "piracy is wrong" because it's a purely subjective moral opinion ... so it's the one argument they know they can't really lose. But can't we get a troll/shill every once in a while who reads? Familiarity with the subject would be a bonus.

Masnick will never admit what threads like this so blatantly demonstrate:

That he and this site have been completely marginalized and are taken seriously by no one except zealots.

This was the original intention a few years back when it became apparent that this blog was spouting anti-copyright propaganda and getting away with being considered a somewhat reputable blog. Of course, as inevitably happens in such backwards scenarios, that was doomed to end. So the strategy for ruining Techdirt became a very simple one: Let Masnick and his followers hang themselves with their own words. Over and over again. That would then serve as prima-facie evidence for not just what their intentions were, but also why copyright enforcement was more necessary than ever. The irony of this will surely burn for years to come.

The simplest and most easily understood analogy is to use what happened to Fox News. When Fox News first aired they decided to use the Goebbels-esque phrase "fair and balanced", knowing that lying is a great way to throw your detractors off their initial footing. (Google also copied this tactic with their "Do No Evil" diversion). However 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' is an age old and accurate cautionary tale, and when people lie enough, and long enough, everyone catches on.

That's what happened to Fox News. That's what happened to Techdirt.

Have fun becoming more meaningless every day, Mike. No one deserves such a fate more than you.

Re:

Did you think that posting multiple times in the same thread, repeating the same tired points over and over again, would somehow vindicate you? Did you think no one would notice your attempt at what is effectively ego masturbation?

You're so obsessed, it's almost painful to watch. But then again, you consider "fuck off and die" as an acceptable argument.

Oh Mike, Can you ever just have a normal conversation? You complained that I ran away and refused to answer a question. Everyone can see that it was you who did just that. I'm here ready to answer any question you might have. You've run off and hid in the corner, stomping your feet. Your desperation and dishonesty is just sad. I can honestly say that I've never come across a sadder or more dishonest person on the internet. You will never just have a direct discussion with one of your detractors. Never. That says all there is about you that anyone needs to know. You're a complete fake. Everything about you is complete bullshit. The fact that you con so many people is just sad. I could never live that way.

Re:

And within an hour you post another thread full of insults after people realised that dealing with you was a tragic waste of time, and left you to your own tantrums. This somehow makes you a better person? You'd might as well go and post in all the threads from several years ago and pride yourself on the fact that no one can be arsed to respond to you, if that makes you feel like a hero.

Re:

It's funny you say that people would see mike as dishonest when you've completly discreadited yourself in the eyes of everyone who was unfortunate to read your horrible logic, ad homs, and your insissting mike has not answered questions where any honest person would admit he did in fact answer.

Good job aj, you've officially shown yourself to be almost all the bad things you accse mike of being.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm glad you acknowledge that Mike did not in fact answer the question. Yes, he said he needed more facts BEFORE he could answer. I gave him three fact patterns. He posted after that only to complain that there was ONE question of his I didn't answer and to lie about my having abandoned the thread. I haven't abandoned the thread. I'm still here, still waiting for him to identify the question he thinks I'm running from and to answer my question to him now that I've supplied the facts that he said he needed. Yet, he's nowhere to be found, purposefully ignoring this thread, and doing what he knew he was going to do the whole time--hem, haw, whine, stomp his feet, and pretend like he's already answered the question when he knows he has not. That's Mike's m.o. every single time he is questioned about his beliefs. Nobody runs from a discussion faster than Mike. Nobody is more dishonest that Mike Masnick. It amazes me that any of you respect him even in the slightest. He's a total joke and a fake.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

'Needs more facts" as in "I find doing x wrong but there are cases where it's ok to do x that i propably have't thought of"

For example, i can't think of a current case where piracy would save a life but there might be PC-style androids(the robot kind, not the phone) that oould "learn" a life saving procedure from a software installation in the future.

Would pirating software for your robot be moral if it's the only way to save a small childs life? Things like that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

My fact patterns are clear, and I'm only interested in basic, straightforward, wholesale infringement. No outlier scenarios. No crazy facts. I want to know if Mike thinks that when someone goes online and downloads a copyrighted movie so they can watch it without paying for it is immoral. Mike hasn't answered that question, and he will never discuss directly his personal beliefs about infringement. You can't shut him up about copyright infringement--he's probably whined about it more than any other human being on earth. Yet he refuses to discuss his personal beliefs when asked a direct, simple question. That speaks volumes of his character.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"it's not right" is the answer he gave for that.

This is getting way beyond stupid.

He said it's not right before I gave him the particular fact pattern, and after he said that he said he couldn't answer about the morality of it because he didn't have all the facts. So no, again, he has not addressed my exact fact pattern, and he has not definitively stated whether he thinks it to be immoral.

And, as I have mentioned several times already, when he says it's not right, he means that it goes against the wishes of the rightholder. He has significantly qualified that statement several times. For example, he doesn't think the rightholder should even have the right, he doesn't think they should worry about their rights being violated, he doesn't think that anyone who violates that right should ever be prosecuted, he doesn't think the violation of the right causes any harm, he thinks that rightholders should embrace those who violate their rights. Etc. Etc.

So no, when he says it's not right, there's about 20 asterisks coming after it. When you consider all of these qualifications, it's impossible to believe that he thinks it's immoral. Hence my direct question to him about the morality of it.

An example. If I tell you that hating black people because of their race is wrong because they don't like it, I'm not necessarily saying it's immoral. And then if I qualify that statement by saying that white people are absolutely superior, black people shouldn't mind being hated because they're no good, etc., you would think that my having said it's wrong wasn't all there is to it.

Mike is the same way. When he says it's not right, he's leaving out tons and tons of relevant information. So no, again, he has not answered the question.

Mike has not come into these comments and said, "When someone downloads a copyrighted movie for free they are acting immorally." Nor do I think he will ever say that, because I don't think he believes that. He'll pay us all lip service and pretend like it's "not right," but at bottom, he thinks it's the bee's knees.

We can keep talking about this over and over and over and over again, but where is Mike? Why won't he just answer the direct question with a direct answer? Why all the games?

The obvious answer is it's because he's too ashamed and dishonest to just say what he believes.

Keep on asking me, I'll keep posting in this thread for days and days. I'm still here, Mike. Why pretend like I ran away when I didn't? Why the dishonesty? Is there even one honest cell in your body?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You know what? this is pointless. You refuse to understand mike for the sake of some fucked up narritive and i'm done dealing with it.

"it's not right but there are cases where it could be justified" is what mike means and is the right answer for most actions that are considered immoral unless we're talking about a select few actions such as rape.

saying "it's not right" and that means it's normally wrong by his standards. If you can't take the time to understand moral concepts then any futher discussions with you is pointless.

Also, i myself consider copying a human right(as part of your personal property rights to mold your physical property into the form you wish) in most cases but there are specific instances of copying would be wrong.

to cases where i think copying is wrong:

1. copying someone's bank account info in order to take money form the account

2. breaking into someone's PC to copy things off it are both immoral. In other words you must either own the physical media the thing you want to copy and redistribute is on or be able to recreate it from your memories in order for copying and redistibution to be moral.

thus I too would say "It's usually ok but I need more data" in answering the moral question.

Also, i follow the golden rule you love so much by releasing my works under a license that allows copying.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well holy fuck. I see AJ has gone off on another tantrum.

Hey, AJ, consider this: last week I traveled to DC where I gave a speech to gov't officials, met with two Senators, and then had a series of other meetings with Congressional staffers and folks in the State Department. Also, I got a nice award.

In other words, I had more important things to do than deal with your latest crusade.

Me being busy isn't me avoiding you. It's me having more important things to do than to respond to your insanity.

One point and then I'm done: you setting up a TOTAL BULLSHIT STRAWMAN of who you think I am, and then claiming I'm dishonest because I don't confirm your TOTAL BULLSHIT STRAWMAN is not me being dishonest. It's you having SERIOUS mental problems in making assumptions about who I must be.

Try this: maybe I'm not the guy you think I am, and every time I tell you I'm not the guy you think I am, it's not because I'm dishonest. It's the opposite.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh good, you're back. Thanks for telling me about all the important things you were doing. You're such an important person, I know. You've been posting new articles and posting in the comments on other articles, so I know you haven't spent every moment receiving important awards. You've been purposefully ignoring this thread. It's just more excuses (always excuses, never just a normal, direct conversation). But I digress.

Are you ready to point out the ONE question I did not answer that you claimed I'm running away from? I'm still here, still ready to give you the answer.

And are you ready to answer my question about the morality of piracy given the three different fact patterns I supplied?

Or did you just come back to make more excuses? Excuses, excuses, excuses. I won't hold my breath.